it's heartening to know that so many of your viewers are as passionate and observant as you are! I suppose this is how history ought to be don, with everyone discussing what they've learned and evolving the story together
If you think about it, everyone who's watching this video must have had an interest in the subject matter, otherwise they wouldn't have clicked on it. And each have done their own readings, or viewings, and have different perspectives on the same subject. This is different to say school or university where you might get students who like one historical topic, but not the other, or are only doing it to get a degree
@aurimixas - for reasons I will get into in a future video (going to be a while because I'm still gathering evidence), they couldn't have attacked before June, regardless what happened in Greece or the Balkans
@@aurimixas was the roads in the soviet Union not a problem during that time? Still to muddy, i thougt i heard that was one of multiple reasons they dit not attack earlyer
@Muhamed Muratovic - this is my profession! And yes, I have a degree in history, although that's meaningless. History is studied via books and sources, not in lecture halls
I still need to go beyond the Urals to make them capitulate and even if the soviets dont have an army anymore my panzers need a month just to get from a province to another for the level of infastracture, now I understand why the germans had so much supply issues XD
This is honestly one of the reasons I love watching TIK. Really close attention to detail from major operations to even the most minor of skirmishes on the Eastern Front. Can't find many other channels that make the information digestible while also covering material to such a thorough extent.
I realy liked the fine videos you make and the other couple of guys who work so hard to put out great videos ! I ve noticed that each creator has their own style so it gives me a realy complete view of a subject that all of you might be covering ! thanks .
I'm glad I was able to be a small help. Also this sounds minor but thank you for pronouncing my name correctly, lots of people don't manage it on the first try, I'm used to it obviously but so its always a pleasant surprise when somebody manages to get in on the first try. Lots of other great comments you highlighted with some equally great points. This says a lot about the quality of your audience. Keep up the great work!
Worth noting the rail road to Astrakhan is not just on the otherwise of the river, all the green stuff on the east bank of the Volga is a swamp. not the best tank country. That swamp also meant that it was the place for the Soviets to fight it out with the Germans because the Germans were never going to isolate the city.
Wouldn’t the siege of Stalingrad have been pointless if it was only on one side of the river ? Reinforcements and supply could have just crossed the river from the east at night.
@@TheImperatorKnight And that dragged on even with the city being entirely surrounded for much of the siege. Of course with Leningrad, unlike Stalingrad, the Germans were fine with a siege since their goal was to cause maximum civilian deaths, tie up Soviet forces, and destroy the city in the long run - with no ideological or pragmatic strategic goals calling for physically taking possession of it on an urgent basis.
They would have still been blocking the Volga north of the city, as well as blocking Soviet reinforcements from easily traveling south to interfere with their campaign in the Caucus. That alone might have been worth maintaining the siege until they could make more progress further to the south.
@@Raskolnikov70 But there is still that pesky dual track rail line on the East side of the Volga coming from Astrakhan that the Soviets could use to move oil, not to mention the ship traffic to Turkmenbusy and Chapayev and their dual track rail lines. Very early on in 1942 the Soviets started filling water proof Cisterns and towing long lines of them with tug boats across the Caspian. When did this start? Roughly when the Germans cut the single track rail line between Rostov and Stalingrad. Those darn "Untermensch", they out smarted the Germans yet again. So blocking the Don may have slowed and hindered, but it didn't block.
Crazy how you cover so much history that I would never find anywhere else. Although having a broad understanding of ww2 is important, the details are what really show you what kind of things happen in war.
Yes, I agree. I think the phrase "nearly inevitable" hits the nail on the head. There were a few choices that could have made a difference if they'd done everything perfectly, but otherwise all roads led to destruction
@@TheImperatorKnight I've heard you say before that Fall Blau was the last throw of the dice for Hitler. Witch means that their probably was a slight chance of a Germany victory had they acted differently in 1942. Have your views changed on this at all? Do you think it's less likely or more likely than you thought before?
Not taking the seemingly lightly defended city would lead to a perfect brigdehead for the soviets and therfore would force large amounts of german forces to defend the siege. They had the same problem outside of Leningrad in 1941 leading to an entire army group getting stuck in that area.
The more I learn about Case 🅱️lue, the more Iget an impression that it had no chance... All the "bad" decisions turned out to be the least bad option, and that German command didn't really have a choice.
@Adam Dziobek very difficult for that to happen - remember, the supply lines were severely overextended, and the Nazis had to deal with keeping Leningrad locked, the many Resistance movements in France, Poland and other countries in Hitler's domain, AND had to deal in keeping the British out of the continent, all the while praying that the USA did not get involved in the war. And we are talking about Russia - you know, the guys who BURNED their own capital to not only deny any shelter and spoiliage, but just to spite Napoleon.
@Adam Dziobek the USSR had transfered good part of its industrial base to the other side of the Urals, making the loss of Moscow, while a desastrous morale loss, not a very damaging one in an infrastructural and logistical sense. And even with this, the Siberian regions had gigantic deposits of methane and oil, allowing a broad mechanized force to make a counterattack in imense numbers. Combine this with the already rising numbers of industrial production in the USSR to the point that the Russians could produce more weapons, tanks, airplanes, ammo and equipment that the Germans could - each one simple, cheap, durable and easy to use and keep then their German counterparts, allowing even the most ignorant peasant to be trained in its use in a matter of weeks. The matter was more then conquering Moscow, but sheer industry: while Germans did Quality, the Russians had Quantity, and even Field Marshal Paulus saw the attack on the Soviet Union a straight path to suicide because Germany could not carry on a war in such a scale under their limited resources.
I've said it a lot, but it's worth repeating: there's a difference between school and education. The State School System is deliberately designed to make you be uninterested in education, so that you're willing to leave all the thinking to those above you in the Social hierarchy and not rock the boat
There was still another reason to compell Paulus to take Stalingrad: Operation Barbarrossa contemplated reaching the Don and the Volga, dig-in and use them as a defence moat. That makes a sensible border on the map, except in the 70 km between those two rivers in the area of Stalingrad, where a land front/border would have to be implemented. Imperative was to stablish it a little to the Nord of the city, to command the river where the width is minimal (as you point). So, the city had to fall. Anyway, they had been before in a hundred urban ratkriegs, comming always on top. It´s just that the Russians, knowing the STRATEGIC importance of the city, made their desperate stand. And, for those obsessed with the silly tale about the namesake, consider this: had the city been on the other side, the Germans would have left it quite alone.
Paulus botched the battle outside stalingrad and let the enemy get inside. Otherwise it would have fallen easily. Plus they made many other mistakes like pounding it to rubble which made it much much harder to take over. When von brauchist died the 6th army's fate was sealed
@@LTPottenger There´s a widespread misconception about the rubble trap the germans fell in, that the ruins of Stalingrad were a killing ground for them. But not for Russians, that (somehow) were more apt for this sort of warfare. Well, the Germans lost, didn´t they? So, the point is proven. But, is this really the case? To begin with, statistics show that the Russian losses there and then were much higher; it was a killing ground for both, only that more so for the Russians. The real cause for the German defeat was no other that the simple and decisive fact that they were surounded: no ammo, no food, no nothing, because the Luftwaffe was unable to cope. The best soldier, when starving, frozen and unable to throw anything but stones to the ennemy, is doomed. And, how did they end up bagged? Because they (Hitler) refused to withdraw and the forces corelation whas what it was. Put in another way: if it had not been in Stalingrad, another place would be remembered as the turning point, because the Russians had more men and resources than the Germans.
@@Tico.Altacuna If you can't move quickly it slows down the attack and that makes it much harder. It also favors snipers and makes it harder to use vehicles
@@LTPottenger Such a huge battle can only be viewed trough a wide-angular lens; forget about anecdotic microscopic issues, like snipers. How many did they kill? One hundred? One thousand? We are talking about hundreds of thousands! And do not forget that the Germans also had snipers. Your other point, the mobility, has more substance; the Germans were masters in the war of movement; this hard nut they had to crack was not the situation they preferred. Still, let´s not forget that, when it came to vehicles and fuel, tha Russians had a huge advantage. Which they put to good use bringing in reinforcements from as far as Siberia and bringing about the large-scale encirclement.
Good thing that you upload the video's around the same time, because this is the 3 time UA-cam dont tell me it's up. Also i was looking for the new video they are always a high point on mondays
@@TheImperatorKnight well you do talk about ww2. a topic people absolutely must not learn about if we want a trilogy. great stuff as always tik, your subscribers are invested enough to actively look for your content!
I received this notification, I guess yt missed a few noti's and let them get through. This missing notifications problem is the reason that when I come online, I refresh my latest videos several times, but probably do not catch all of them - but, who is too know what they have missed? The level of incompetence is appalling and leads one to suspect malfeasance when yt has no suitable explanation.
According to what I've read there were several German patrols that made it all the way to the outskirts of Astrakhan and the Caspian sea. One even blew up a supply train and took some prisoners. I just find it incredible that a few German soldiers made it that far.
RE: A possible 'Siege of Stalingrad': The Op. Blue plan doesn't really specify the need to capture the city, but it makes very clear that the primary objective for Army Group A is to secure a Don-Caspian Line for defensive purposes. The decision to take the city was made by the field commanders, not 'Meddling Hitler', based on their analysis of their resources and comparative strengths with the enemies, as German doctrine encouraged. If Paulus & Co. made this decision, they clearly thought it the most appropriate tactic for completing their assigned strategy, and I think for good reason. If the western bank of Stalingrad had been secured, the amount of German troops required to stop the Soviets re-crossing is minimal compared to how many would be needed to establish a semi-siege line around the city. All those troops were needed to secure the flanks of the city and the rest of the objectives along the Volga, and so a quick strike to the city makes perfect sense. From Paulus and the Germans' side of affairs it really wasn't a tactical blunder; it made sense, and he had the forces to achieve it. What tilted the balance was the stunningly brave defence of the city by the Soviet defenders, as is made clear in account after account and recount after recount. Most armies, even Soviet ones, would not defend an exposed objective so fiercely when there is a nice river to hide behind, but these guys did, and not only did they but they defended it harder than any other position on any front anywhere in the war that I know of. That is why this battle is so extraordinary and worth remembering in my opinion. Really, everything 6th Army did made complete sense, and by the time they could have really realised what becoming so focused on this one objective and pouring all their strength into it would cause, it was too late for any alternative to be viable. It really is just one of those things where no one could know, except those specific soviet defenders, how bloody hard the fight would be.
If you have the cards, the dice and the troops to do it. You might as well do it or get cold feet about things. If the enemy is reeling back and you got him on the rope, you hit him and defeat him. Not give him a chance to steady himself and come back.
Defence of Stalingrad was 80% propaganda and 20% competent calculation - if opponent triumphs you in mobility and troop training (only advantages at this point), you try to take this advantage from him, by bogging him down in pointless siege for which his army is thoroughly unprepared and many weaknesses of your side are largely negated by them fighting defence in urban and fortified terrain.
The thing is - I don't think the Germans actually did have the mobility advantage. Using their armor effectively in the field would have cost them a lot of fuel that they just didn't have. The cost of city fighting is blood. I'm guessing that they knew that even with what the Germans viewed as superior German soldiers armed with superior German equipment, it was still going to be a bloody fight but it was the only option available to them.
It did make sense until October. By this time it should have been clear that 6th Army was in for another month yet, should it persist assaulting the city. At this stage Paulus was against it, as well as Weichs at the army group level, only Hitler pushed for it. By this time all strategic benefit was gone, and it was only a matter of prestige. Since the Caucasus could not be captured before the end of the year, Hitler needed another prize, and Stalingrad was the only one within his reach, or so he thought.
What made Stalingrad a disaster was not the failure to occupy the entire city, nor would this cause the surrender of the German 6th Army. It because a disaster because the 6th Army was completely surrounded and the Germans could not break through the encirclement to rescue the 6th Army, nor could they break out. They could not be supplied or relieved or evacuated and General Winter did the rest.
it is interesting to see the point of view of the situation of the time, many people blame generals, commanders and other figures for their mistakes without seeing the context that was going through. looking nowadays, that we already know everything that happened is easy to point out the errors
I’m starting to come to the conclusion that the war was lost when the Soviets outran the pincers during the beginning stages of Fall Blau. Really enjoying the Battlestorm!
TIK That is the most likely reason. When you look at Operation Barbarossa, you see that a lot of the issue that Germany had came back to their lack of fuel. Even in when they could achieve victory, it happened in spite of their poor logistics. Thankfully, Germany did lack the fuel necessary to win the war.
@@spicytuna421 My conclusion is that Germany won. When examining the sentences imposed on criminals, the punishments handed down by German judiciary are harsher than those of the Americans. Perhaps a draw on the eastern front. Also, the Vietnam War is considered a defeat, even though it was milder on an annual basis than the current virus. In reality, propaganda defeat.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 German armed forces might have lost, but Germany and Germans are undisputed victor of WW II. Look at this objectively: - they have massacred any competition of any sort (including economic one) from East and by hands of post-war Polish, Russian etc government effectively implemented Generalplan Ost v.2.0 anyway; these countries are suppliers of cheap labour and cheap resources and waste bucket - they had brought down ancient local Western competitors: Great Britain lost the Empire and France is now effectively subservient and vastly smaller economy than German one, also, with reduced colonial presents - using mostly American money, they have built themselves political and economical hegemony over Europe and succeeded in driving most of US military presence from it, without firing single shot; they have buffer zones from any single directrion wherever you look
Yes, I've been posting a mix of longer and shorter videos recently, which is unusual. Some people don't like shorter videos, but others prefer them. I think a mix of the two is probably right
12:37. Were not the Maikop oilfields on fire when they fell into German hands? They would have had to rebuild them completely which would have been a logistical challenge in itself. That makes this counterfactual a nonstarter. Maikop was of no immediate use to anyone.
Yes, the Maikop oilfields were destroyed. But they started to rebuild them. I can't remember exactly how much oil they managed to extract from them by the time they had to abandon the area, but it was basically nothing
@@TheImperatorKnight I'll try looking the figures up but i did see them some time ago when i was looking at oil production for the various nations. In the grand scheme of things, it was rather trivial. BTW-Look up Operation Schamil if you haven't already seen it.
It's not so much that Maikop wasn't useful, it's that Maikop was just the first out of several oil fields (Grozny, Baku) the Germans needed to get to use at best or wreck at least. While for Germany getting Soviet oil for itself was ideal, it was probably "good enough" to deny that oil to the Soviets. Falling back on the far lesser amount of oil imported from the West would probably force the Soviets to choose between fueling their military vehicles and supplying their agricultural sector with tractor fuel and fertilizer: fight and be starved into submission, or eat and be defeated on the battlefield.
@@jpjpjp453 Just looked up the Wiki page on the OP, sounds like something I'd do. Send in Commandos ahead, capture needed objectives, and link up with them as quickly as possible. Brits used a fair number of Commando raids. Wonder how much the others really used them? Since their effect is many times that of their actual numbers.
@@calumdeighton Commando raids which are intended as quick in and out strikes are far different than those which require the commando force to hold until relieved. Given the distances involved and the stiffness of Soviet resistance, along with the Soviet practice of pre positioning sabotage units inside of "conquered" cities and installations, if the Germans had used special forces to hold objectives, these units would either have never been relieved, or, if relieved as planned, would have had nothing but wreckage to turn over to the follow on forces.
8:57 - Not impassible. Those early Tank armies were very weak & struggling. But strategically the entire Don front for its 500-600 miles was undefendable: The more the Germans got to the east, the more it was easy to the Soviets to cut them off
This is an informative and thought provoking video. So many factors involving the Fall Blue timing and how logistical/supply issues impacted the plan. And the whole train route discussion added a new wrinkle. This might just be the most robust and informative 15 minutes on UA-cam.
A thought just came into my head: A decent 'what-if' wargame exercise over July-August 1942 along the southern half of the Eastern Front might be interesting: Based on the known constraints -- supply, scheduled reinforcements, replacements -- how would Army Group South (A & B thereafter) have fared if: 1. Army Group South has an additional army available, while there are no changes in supply, scheduled reinforcements, and replacements. Would it have performed better than historically? If so, then by how much? 2. The order of battle, the existing rail and road networks remain unchanged. However, Army Group South starts out with larger supply stockpile than historically. Would it have performed better than historically? If so, then how much?
@@TheImperatorKnight Cossack country has large cellars with freezing temperatures where they stored milk, meat, fish, etc. Kinda of acted as modern day refrigerators and freezers.
Another very informative video TIK, great! One thing I was considering: In your previous Battlestorm video, you said Army Group A attacking Stalingrad alongside Army Group B would have caused severe logistical issues, which I agree with. But what if A was just kept as a strategic reserve, thereby lessening the strain on the supply line, and allowing Paulus to recuperate losses and plug holes in his line? If A was used as a strategic reserve, could Paulus have taken the city, and do you think the Wehrmacht could have contained the Soviet bridgeheads on the Don?
Tik your totally awesome not only do you go through a ton of literature but you are willing to listen to the people who obviously know the subject matter differently than you and your willing to speak about different aspects and opinions. Thank you
Basically, you state that the Germans had to use railroads because of the lack of oil. However, I've the feeling that even with all the oil and trucks in the world, the Germans would still need to control the railroads and operate them efficiently (which they did not historically), the roads for trucks and cars in the USSR were just not able to handle the amount of supply needed (keep in mind that one train can transport several hundreds of trucks worth of supply). It doesn't mean that trucks were not important, trains are quite inflexible, so you need trucks to go from a station a few kilometers behind to the various points/units on the frontline. That also brings another question, in your documentary, you frequently mention combat units waiting for oil/supply to keep advancing, but was it only a local issue as bringing supply to a combat zone is always a tough ask? Or was it a more systemic issue, with all the supply chain being immobilized due to lack of oil? Are there the same kind of accounts of shortages from logistical units of the Werhmarcht as seen as in combat units? www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/3/9/the-influence-of-railways-on-military-operations-in-the-russo-german-war-19411945
Pierre-Francois CARPENTIER every body needed the railroad back then, the economics of the 30-ties and 40-ties are relying on rail transportation. This is simply a flawed statement and false argument.
This! This is my favourite TIK video. I have watched them all(or not the QOTD-stuff yet). I have seen you fx destroy the South African historians and all of the bad history in Kurland. Earlier you have agknowledged mistakes but the honesty in your comments in this one felt so real. Even TIK can be human - at least sometimes. Love your stuff man. You are a constant motivation for me. Take care and carry on!
Don't understand what the first, second, place comments are all about? But I've always wondered if bypassing the city was an option for the Wehrmacht, thanks for exploring the tactical and strategic reasons about this..
People like being "1st!" in the comments. It's just a bit of fun :) But yes, after some of the great comments last week, I had to follow it up with this
Not a complete war-winning win, but it significantly enhances the Axis position, morale, and political power. I think people underestimate the knock-on effects outside of Blau that affected Germany's position.
Taking the Caucasus does two things, gives Germany more oil, eventually. They have to rebuild the oilfield and then ship the oil to Romania to be refined until they can get the captured refineries rebuilt. So it will be a while before they get the benefits from the captured territory. Secondly, it deprives the Soviets of that oil. 80% of soviet oil came from the Caucasus region. Everything ran on oil, their industry, their agriculture, their transportation systems, their military. Lose 80% of their oil supplies and the soviets are close to the point of collapse.
'whose capture is not deemed necessary' (Stalingrad). Germany had sent massive refinery infrastructure and experts with Army Group A, including a huge pipeline which the Soviets captured and subsequently used, so the Germans were well aware and prepared to refine the captured oil wells as efficiently as possible. They weren't that stupid to believe they could just roll up to an oil well and start pumping crude into their vehicles.
History is so treacherous when it comes to try to understand it and predict an outcome even if we change a small detail. That's why is so fascinating. Another small detail no one mentions was the natural death of von Reichenau prior Fall Blau. He was the original 6th army commander, later promoted to Field Marshall of Army Group South. He was far more aggressive and experienced than Paulus or von Weichs. Maybe in charge, he would have assaulted Stalingrad earlier while the city was only defended by Militias and NKVD battalions Though I don't think the overall outcome would be different, only in time. Stalin knew this war was of total victory or total loss. He would have fight to the end I think.
Very interesting and useful addon to the previous episode. And excellent quality comments too for sure. The target wasn't the Stalingrad-Astrakhan railway, which ran beyond the Volga, but rather a maneuver to help Army Group A capture the Grozny-Astrakhan one. As for the Millerovo-Stalingrad supply route, it was clogged from the very beginning and never delivered the needed amount. Of course besieging the city without striving to capture it at all costs was the best option, that's what I always write in such a discussion. Arguably, the war was already lost after the defeat at Moscow. A German victory at Stalingrad wouldn't necessarily have meant winning the war in the east, this would rather have given some more time. But then again the chances were about even. And of course defeat was definitely the end of it, Germany could no longer win. The long and bloody fighting of the last two years were just delaying the inevitable outcome. The only chance left was the development of the atom bomb.
"Of course besieging the city without striving to capture it at all costs was the best option, that's what I always write in such a discussion." This is true, but I would say - only in hindsight. Plus, the Germans couldn't siege the city properly because they'd need to cross the Volga to do that... so it's not necessarily a perfect solution either.
@@TheImperatorKnight A semi-siege would have been sufficient. Subjected to incessant bombing, the city wouldn't have been much of a bridgehead for a Soviet offensive. But the Red artillery could built up on the other side of the Volga, too.
Tik, it feels really weird to watch one of your videos with only 15min (i know its boring for some but i became addicted that is bizarre to see something less than 25min but still your videos are always enjoyable) . Keep up 💯
I know, I've sort of been going back and forth between shorter and longer videos recently. There's a few factors for that, but I do think it's good to have a variety. There was quite a while where all I posted was hour+ long videos, and a lot of it was waffle or not properly scripted or properly edited. Now, I'm trying to make the videos as well-edited as I can, and only as long as they need to be. For example, I could have pulled up a few more comments for this video and talked about them, but most of the main points were already raised so they wouldn't have added a lot more to the discussion. Thus, they were cut. Saves you and the others a bit of time, and me a bit of time editing too so I can work on other things (like the scripts for the next season of Battlestorm Stalingrad!)
The original assignment was to block the traffic on the Wolga using artillery only.Paulus passed the possibility to entrap the retreating armies,before they entered Stalingrad.The 4th Panzerarmy was ready to flank and link up with the 6th army behind the 62 and 63 armies.Unfortunatly,Paulus was not an active field commander and more the calculating staff officer.He waited for 2 days to regroup his troops and thus let them get away.Might have been that after this,capturing Stalingrad became a prestige object.On the siege itself:von Richthofen made the wrong decision,bombing the city to rubble.He should have concentrated on the resupply and reinforcement crossing the Wolga.
But after the hard fighting to reach Stalingrad and with the Soviets still able to get supplies and men into the city from the East - I think one could have foresaw a city fight was a bad idea.
Looking from an logistical and industrial perspective, the task ahead of them was too immense. The oil has to be extracted in occupied territory while being threatened by large armies in the immediate vicinity. And that's assuming they get to repair the virtually destroyed infrastructure the Soviets have razed. Then this raw oil has to be transported to the coast of an occupied nation and loaded onto tankers in the Black sea, the axis didn't possess even a remotely adequate amount of tankers for this. These tankers would then need to survive the journey across the Black sea, while everyone on the planet is aware of their presence and strategic importance. Then they would need to successfully unload in Romania, given it being the only Axis power in the vicinity with even near the infrastructure to refine this oil and make the derivatives they need. The infrastructure in Romania would need to be vastly expanded, since it was already tasked with producing and refining as much oil as it can. If they were successfull in this refining they would then need to send all those derivatives back almost the same way they came from. The railway gauge in the USSR is not compatible at all and transporting fluids over rail is in itself quite daunting, problematic and expensive. Not to mention the constant partisan problems, railway sabotage would be a primary concern. So the same tankers would have to be tasked with taking the oil derivatives back across the Black sea. When they arrive, they would need to unload and distribute all that fuel to the necessary army formations, most of which are in combat (since the Soviets are not just going to sit on their hands and do nothing)... To avoid this, they were hoping to capture refineries in the caucausus, even training and airdroping insurgents (example: Operation Schamil) to capture and protect these installations ahead of the main German army. Even if they were successfull in holding these and assuming they restore and expand the infrastructure and get it working, they would still need to transport all that fuel over occupied land with an incompatible railroad gauge while fighting off both partisans and the main Soviet army. This is all assuming the ostfront would get all of the fuel, the rest of Axis territory is also severely lacking in fuel and there would be no real viable way to supply it.
You're on top of your game this week. Very seldom are so many comments featured, but all brought thought provoking points. The Don bend and bridge heads hadn't made much sense to me either. I didn't realize middle eastern oil was of a different type, needing it's own refinery and lacking in standing infrastructure. Capturing the oil wells alone never made sense to me, you need refineries to make is usable.
The problem with sieging the city is that you still have supply problems. Could they really have supplied their armies enough to sustain a seige? Would the Soviets have counter attacked before the Axis could starve them out? It may look like a better option than going into the city, but when you are already experiencing supply problems, it's easy to see why digging in for a siege is not high on your list of actions.
@@TheImperatorKnight yourwellcome Hey tik could you make a video about the "fasist" movements in the other axis powers in Europe at the time of ww2 it would be interesting topic don't you think?
Sadly, without a free market and prices you cannot make economic calculations (see Mises, "Socialism," P103-105). So even if that data was available, it wouldn't tell you anything meaningful, because there's no free market in State military logistics.
I think the most prohibiting cost would have been "time".... There was a considerable effort of the Reichsbahn Ost and also Eisenbahntransportabteilungen (Railroad transport units) of the Wehrmacht to just re-rail the lines in the conquered territories. And they didnt cought up to the frontline. Constructing a completly new railroad isnt a small undertaking. You need to survey the countryside for the best paths, since grades need to be avoided. Trains dont deal well with grades, so you want to have the paths as flat as possible. The ground needs to be prepared for the tracks and the weight of the trains on top of it, you need a lot of material for building the right-of-way alone, be it gravel, steel, wood and whatnot. You cant just put rails on the ground, unless you build lightweight narrow gauge lines that cant haul the immense loads of materiel needed for an army during warfare. Switches and yards and engine facilities need to be build, and thats quite time-consuming. There were a lot of additional problems along the way as well, for example the water needed to be treated to be usable in german steam engines, so treatment facilities had to be build. Same thing for coal, the coal they got from the Donbas wasnt burning well in the german fireboxes. Communications/telegraphs needed to be build, security detachments had to be stationed etc...
@@herpderp6705 This is something near my mind. I am wondering how much in terms of resources is needed to draw from the war industry to build the new rail system. As an mech engineer, I know it is much more complex than a click in the box as shown in HOI3.
Regarding your 'hindsight' argument - once it became clear that Soviet resistance had stiffened and it was no longer possible to win quickly and easily in Stalingrad, would it not had been prudent to withdraw from the city and revert to the 'encirclement' plan that you outlined? Was there a convincing rationale for the Germans to continue long after they had started, or did they fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy?
Hitler wanted Stalingrad as a political statement and a victory for the German people. Retreating or bypassing Stalingrad was never an option allowed to Paulus.
Your premise is refreshing, and I love it ... that history is not simply a matter of blindly believing some official version and considering that to be the irrefutable absolute truth. To me, it's sobering how much of history tends to be written by those with an ax to grind ... and it's not just written by the winners (as you pointed out) but the survivors such as Halder. But, even if the writing of history were all a good-faith effort, it's still difficult to get the most accurate depiction. It's more like a detective story ... there is a good US movie "Courage under Fire" in which an investigator is trying to essentially find the most accurate version of a recent military event -- essentially, trying to write history as accurately as reasonably possible -- and it's shown to be a daunting task. How messy people's epistemology is .. that plays a big part. Growing up, I thought that most things in the field of human endeavor were straightforward, and the complex things were all in engineering. How very much mistaken I was ... anyway, what I most love about your approach is that it fundamentally undermines the power of government propagandists by stripping them of the ability to credibly claim that they get to be the source of historical truth just because they happen to be in power.
I suspect that the answer as to why the Germans went to capture the city instead of going for a blockade to the north of it is actually very simple and the things you're saying are just on the brink of hitting on it. Fighting north of the city would have meant a big field battle with a lot of mechanized maneuver. This means they would have needed a lot of fuel to run their tanks, trucks, half tracks, armored cars, etc. From the point of view of Germany, at the time, the choice was spend a lot of fuel, that they didn't have, fighting in the open or spend a lot of blood fighting in close quarters.
Hi TIK, a video of railways and the eastern campaign would be very interesting. Its conquer , seccions converted, Rolling material, division and corps supplied by this lanes.
Tik, next video can you please go into detail about the battle of Moscow, I was discussing the eastern front with some colleagues and they refused to believe there was ever a battle of Moscow, yes it wasn’t in Moscow, but it was a monumental battle, and in my opinion was the turning point on the eastern front, yes Stalingrad and Kursk were major battles, but I still believe Moscow was the turning point because the Germans never had the initiative after Moscow, please tell me if you agree/disagree, and keep up the amazing work.
Exactly. Had the Germans realised how overextended they are before resuming offensive for Moscow in November 1941, they could have saved 400 000 men and would have been in much better position for Fall Blau.
@@jakubstanicek6726 They knew that their forces were over extended. The problem was that their intelligence told them that the Soviets were in worse shape then the attacking Germans were and that they had no viable reserves and no chance of launching a counterattack. Moscow was so close that most of the German generals succumbed to the infamous "one last push syndrome."
He needs to finish the Stalingrad series before trying to tackle a subject as immense as The Battle of Moscow! Having said that, I second the motion - - yes - - TIK - - someday, I hope you will do a series on the amazing Battle of Moscow!
Lovecraft I think just being on Reddit highlights what a shithole it is. A great time waster but I’m not sure how far I’d make it without cute animals pictures and funny videos
This is also why I put on a 'voice' when I quote Hitler etc, because I know if I didn't, someone would isolate it and post it somewhere as "proof" that I'm a Nazi
@@TheImperatorKnight Yeah, Robert Zubrin does the same thing. The man's Jewish, with Holocaust victims in his family, and couldn't be a bigger anti Malthusian, anti Nazi, passionate anti racist etc, but when quoting Hitler he puts on an obviously insincere pompous voice, perhaps because as a defender of Columbus, American pioneers, etc he probably gets called the usual names
It be better if there was a video compilation, with time stamps and moments in other videos where TIK said it. He lists his sources. Might as well list the videos as well. 🤔
@@calumdeighton It would still be manipulative and misleading since most viewers would not bother to use the source list to check the context in each case.
And then there is also the small matter of converting the wide tracks of the Soviet Railroads into the standard European railroad gauge of 1453 mm. I wonder whether the rate at which this was accomplished could have influenced the German logistics situation during Fall Blau, maybe especially in regards to the supply problems experienced by the 6th Army.
Fun fact in 2007 I took a journey to Volgograd and came by train to the city from Moscow. It was a fairly mundane trip between the cities but Volgograd was and amazing place for any history nut to visit. I stayed in a historic Old Hotel on the railway station Square. I meet up with an Indian doctor that spoke really good English and Russian. We spent the night at a local restaurant, casino, night club, and banya had a great laugh and fun night. I spent the following day at the museum, mamyan Kurgan and saw the change of guards. I only spent 2 days at Stalingrad/Volgograd something my tour planner didn't understand the pull to go.
This has to be trolling. In case not... Germany wouldn't have had that many of them as they were produced in a single place, the Henschel works at Kassel. And don't forget the RAF and USAAF were within range for their heavy bombers.
I went to the supermarket and looked at some health info for a sandwich and said to myself "but is this really the case?" I've been watching this channel for too long.
I don't understand why Hoth and Paulus didn't cross the Volga South and North of Stalingrad respectively encircling the city and having a bridgehead for further operations South to Astrakhan. Was this that hard to see at the time? They should have done the same as they did with Rostov and Kharkov.
Hey TIK, in addition to making the best documentary on Stalingrad ever made (and a lot has been made on the subject) you also raise some very intriguing questions. But the counter question is what would have been changed even if he went to Astrakhan? Let’s assume that Paulus did reach the mouth of Volga (He could not have reached the city proper, since Astrakhan is on the opposite side of the river, and on top of that protected by an enormous delta, not exactly a tank country there). What would have been different? He would only have had a longer flank to protect. Let’s say 29.Mot and 14.Pz leave Stalingrad, pick up 16.Mot from Yelista along the way, somehow defeat 64th, 57th, 51st Armies and reach Caspian Sea. They leave behind additional 300 km of Volga front that has to be protected by at least 6 additional divisions (under the assumption that a division can somehow protect 50km of front). Assuming that they would have to leave 5 divisions to keep 62nd Army pocketed in the city, and that everything north of the city remains the same (5 divisions of XIV PzK and VIII AK protecting the northern shield, XI AK with 3 Divisions holding the Don front). I don’t see how this might be any better for Germans. Actually, since the main force of 6th Army would be further away from the city, it could have only made Uranus much easier. And even something like a Big Saturn possible. And instead of trapping 6th Army, they could have gotten a much bigger prey. When it got it’s supply lines cut in November, 6 Army was not able to move even a most modest 40km to breakout. Imagine they are stretched along Volga from Stalingrad to Astrakhan and all of the sudden the supply lines get cut. They could have escaped a tactical disaster of getting the 6th Army surrounded, by keeping enough mobile forces around city fresh and spared from urban fighting. But then the city would have held out much better and it would amount to another endless siege. But it would be a strategic defeat (no oil), and political humiliation (no Stalingrad). Another option was not to alter the original Blau and to go for Volga in full force. And only then (probably late August) to turn Southward. But then the strategic goal of getting the oil in 1942. would have to be dropped. Which would amount to strategic defeat. Further option would have been to take some units from the Center (let’s say “Grossdeutchland, 9.PzD, and few more PzD) and reinforce the southern thrust. In that case today we would be discussing “What should have Model done to prevent 9th Army and part of 4.Army of being trapped in Rzhev-Viazma pocket in Operation “Mars”? Or, he could have taken 11.Army from Crimea. But in that case Sinyavino offensive would have succedded, Leningrad siege would have been lifted in September 1942, Demyansk pocket would have fallen, and we would have had a topic on Army Group North do discuss, how it could have been saved. The point is: Germans simply did not have enough forces to cover all the frontage, nor supplies to keep it all functioning as they wished. Whatever they had tried, a disaster of different kind was waiting to happen. Some side points: - I don’t think Germans were able to sustain a motorized corps all the way in Astrakhan area. That is 400-500km of roadless steppe from the nearest railhead in Kotelnikovo. There is a good reason 16.MotD stopped in Yelista. - The bridgehead in Kremenskaya was not that relevant for the course of events. When Uranus started, 65.Army was not able to penetrate the lines of XI.AK (though it was part of the plan. To deprive German of forces to close the reversed front. There is a good explanation by Isayev here: ua-cam.com/video/RE-I4qWx3wc/v-deo.html). It was the two smaller bridgeheads in Kletskaya and Serafimovich screened by Romanian VI. And II. AK respectively, that proved to be the fatal for 6.Army. - Cutting Volga is overrated. It is mentioned in Blau objectives, but more as a collateral benefit, rather then a strategic game changer. It didn't need Germans to block it to traffic, Volga is blocked by ice 4-5 months a year and not suitable for any kind of transport. (For example, As early as early November 62nd Army was experienceing difficulties transporting it's meager supplies across the frozen crust. Getting something bigger and further up the north was all more challenging). Soviet Union relied on the railways for most of it's transport. - I don’t agree that Axis got close to achieving their goal anywhere in 1942. For a moment in July it looked as if they are on a good track. But it was only that: it just looked so.
Paulus was not the man for the job the job called for a man with daring and imagination not by the book set piece Battle plan opportunity comes once and Paulus wasn't aware of it
Many good points. Normally, taking Astrakhan was the aim of Operation Fischreirher which implied taking Stalingrad first. Should 6th Army have cut the first part and gone for the Caspian Sea without taking the city? This could have helped securing the Caucasus and locking down the whole region, although there were also some negative considerations to take into account like you rightly pointed out. But again, in my opinion, and at least by October 1942, any option was better than trying to capture the city whatever it takes. A better option could have been securing the Don Front. And in retrospect, we know that the central sector of the front (Rzhev) was largely strong enough to spare a few divisions to the southern one. But intelligence couldn't prove it at that time.
@@antonjoly9601 Anton, it's an honor to talk to you (your 4 volume atlas is an inevitable companion when reading any book on Stalingrad). Operation Fischreirher made no military sense on it's own. It made sense only in case of Stalingrad being taken first. And it is not clear how would taking the west bank of Volga would have helped Germans. (I stress out that it is not possible to take Astrakhan itself, the city is protected by Volga delta. Take a look here; retromap.ru/m/#14194016_z9_45.860368,47.606506 ) Taking a Kalmyk steppe would not block the Soviet communication. Their main communication artery was the double track railway on the eastern side of Volga that went from Astrakhan to Saratov (where there was the next railway bridge across Volga) and then northwest to Moscow or northeast into Kuybishev and furhter to Siberia. On top of that Soviets had another Caspian railway artery further to the East starting from Guryev to Orsk. So Astrakhan would not cut the communication in any way. In the Astrakhan scenario, the only operational benefit for Germans would have been that there are fewer forces left in Stalingrad to be encircled. But then the encirclement would be easier to accomplish, leaving more reserves for exploitation push. For example, instead of keeping entire two Red Army Fronts (Don and Stalingrad) to keep the encircled forces trapped in the city, it could have been done with half of that force. That would leave free an entire additional Front (say Don Front) for exploitation and a deep push maybe even as far as Rostov. The same mistake of focusing on Stalingrad and leaving a overstretched flanks open, would only be made worse with going even further south to Astrakhan, leaving an even longer flank, and even fewer forces (not to mention an issue of supplying the army in Astrakhan). The city of Stalingrad could have played a role of a significant bridgehead and logistical base for such an counter strike. . It is possible that if the bulk of the 6.Army down towards Astrakhan, the Red Army might have not attempt something like Uranus in the first place. Which is legitimate option. But they would have attempted something else. And God knows what that something else could have caused for Germans. Maybe even more catastrophic. Now that we know that Stalingrad as played out in actual history turned out to be the disaster for Germany because we have seen it happening, and thus it seems that anything else would have produced better results for Germans. But it is not the case. What we don’t know is how many similar disasters they have avoided by taking those exact decisions that they have actually taken. Alternative histories hide as many defeats as victories. In a General staff military game with the Fall of 1942 set up, I would prefer the position of Red Army at any time. In the very least I see the Red Army attempt to cut of the northern finger: Strike from the city towards Don, with simultaneous strike from the North. This would have trapped greater part of XIV PzK (3 divisions), VIII AK (2 divisions), XI AK (3 divisions) plus whatever Romanians would have been crushed in the process, and with the rest of the 6A. forces 400 km away in Astrakhan the chances of timely rescue would have been low. I disagree that Germans could have spared anything from Rzhev front without making it collapse. It may look one sided victory for Germans, but the margin of victory was very small. Taking a single division might have tipped the scales in RA favour. What is often overlooked is that the German divisions in AGC were much more under strength than their AGS equivalents. Their staying and defensive powers were proportionally reduced, they could not withstand that much punishment. Even in the height of the battle of Stalingrad OKH was pumping reinforcements to AGC to compensate for this disproportion. Had but a single important division been pulled out from Rzhev salient it would have invited a disaster for Germans. The only way they could have release some forces from there was to evacuate the Rzhev salient (which is exactly what they did when they had to create some reserves). The point is: even with the benefit of the hindsight there is little alternative to Paulus taking the city. He had to go there. This does not mean that he could not have performed better once he got into the city. He could have done much better, but that is another subject.
@@vladocuro6570 Thanks for the positive words. You're right to mention that A alternative histories hide as many defeats as victories. And many of your arguments sound correct. Still I'm not sure 6th Army needed to go into the city, and I'm sure they didn't need to persist trying to capture it all during 2 months even as they had 90% of it.
@@antonjoly9601 The 6.A had to go into the Stalingrad (and try to take it, for that matter) for the same reason that led Wehrmacht to take Voronezh in early July. Voronezh was the northern pillar (or the 'roof' as Robert Citino have called it) of what would be described as German 'eastern wall', Stalingrad was supposed to be the eastern pillar in the same wall (and Astrakhan would have been the southern one). The logic behind taking Stalingrad is the the same as one behind taking Voronezh, and the logic is not that much in taking the city (Germans did not need Voronezh after all), but denying it to the enemy as the logistical and supply hub. As a matter of fact, the case for Stalingrad is even stronger: Voronezh is on the opposite side of the river (Don), therefore even leaving it to the Soviets would not be as dangerous as leaving Stalingrad which was on the "German side" of the river (Volga). Leaving Stalingrad in Soviet hands would mean leaving a dangerous bridgehead to Red Army. A bridgehead which could also double as supply depot, logistical hub, shelter, etc. therefore denying Stalingrad to the Red Army was even more compelling that doing that with Voronezh. On the other side I fully agree with you that it was not necessary (though still highly preferable) to take entire city of Stalingrad. According to the military logic refered to above, the bare minimum was to deny it to the Red Army. Bottom line: Paulus had to go in there to deny such an outpost to Red Army. But once in there, he didn't have to chase the 'mirage' of final conquest of the entire city. - Consequently, what was absolutely critical for Germans was the control of Volga frontage rather than control of the territory of the city. And this is exactly what Paulus failed miserably at. He was going around the city hitting various districts almost randomly, all the while leaving the vast expanses of Volga waterfront to the Red Army. He was focused on the city as the price to be conquered, rather than an asset to be denied to the enemy. To be cynical a bit: he was probably too much focused on getting that Feld-marshal baton.
I've spent hundreds on PC games, PC components and audiophile gear, but I consider the $$ spent in patreon dollars for this channel have yielded more dividends. Thank you.
Years ago, I read a Civil War history. It discussed Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, whether it was the right thing to do. The author wrote something I've never forgotten: For Robert E. Lee in the summer of 1863, there was no right thing to do. This probably applies to the Germans by summer of 1942.
Your Stalingrad series is excellent - well done! Separately, when you get back to North Africa and especially the first battle of Alamein have a look at Major General Eric Dorman Smith. He was very different from most of the other British officers with a strong commitment to military innovation and professionalism. He was also a close friend of Ernest Hemingway. There is a very good biography about him by Lavinia Greacen.
Yes, we do have the advantage of hindsight to judge Paulus's decision. My question is that when Paulus or the OKH realized that taking the city was not an easy job after a few attempts, is it reasonable to pull back ,secure Paulus's flank , siege the city and free up some motorized units for other operations, like going for Astrakhan or help Kleist taking the caucasus, or was it too late already? Cant wait for the next episode to find out!
AWESOME EPISODE! I LOVE HOW YOU HIGHLIGHT SOME OTHERS' COMMENTS AS WELL; THERE ARE MANY KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE FOLLOWING YOU AND I FEEL BLESSED TO SIT IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR DISCUSSION, LEARNING A BIT MY SELF AS WELL ;)
The germans certainly were aware of the railroad line from Grozny to Astrachan, as a reconnaissance patrol actually captured it for a while. Paul Carrell (yes, I know about the problems with him), even mentioned an anecdote, that the patrol even received a phone call from the next railway station at Astrachan... As for blocking the Volga, I agree with the point that the myriad of smaller side-arms south of Stalingrad makes it fairly unfeasable. The argument for going straight to Astrachan comes from the fact that Astrachan was supposed to be the final end-pont of Operation Barbarossa to the south - there were no plans to go any further anyway. So, in theory, that's the final objective to be taken, then the entire operation would have been a success - when one forgets that the soviets needed not necessarily to surrender after Astrachan had fallen. As for the last point raised in the video - while it has been the ususal tone for a long time to praise the Wehrmacht, since a couple of years, it has become "fashionable" to look at the logisitcs and industrial sides and say germany never had the slightest chance (especially amongst youtube historians) - which isn't completely true either and overloooks how close they actually came to reaching their objectives. Certainly, there were many flaws within the german military and economy (moral points aside for the moment), but for quite a while, it was not clear who would win ww2.
And a German "win" would not have meant total "world domination" by Germany as it has been defined by many historians of the war and by many propagandists. Most likely it would have taken the form of a vastly expanded Germany within the confines of Europe along side (or confined by) British and Russian spheres of influence with the US remaining a major but not a dominant factor on the global stage. Of course, the area within the German sphere of influence would be a nazi nightmare..But that wouldn't have been the first time the world looked on passively while state sponsored mass genocide and other horrors went on.
I was born not far from Volgograd (former Stalingrad). My town lies several hours south of Volgograd. There vicinity of swamps, small rivers and Volga mean that every summer begins from attacks of mosquitoes and midgets that literally cover your body and gnaw you alive. Their bites cause inflammation and iritation and you want to scratch all the time. However their activity plummets drastically by the end of June, but Germans would have faced 35-40°C degree heat in the summer. Not great anyway. Many locals including us try to leave this place during heat and midget activity while some people supposed that Germans would would agree to find themselves in the thick of it. Winters aren't easy too by the way. They can be really harsh due to the fact that the climate in that region is sharply continental and can be really frosty. Of course we aren't as harsh as Sahara, but if you invade our region without being well prepared, be ready to suffer. A lot.
Brilliant. I send these videos to my dad who was a historical researcher and its great to show him these updates in WW2 history debate. To me this series and research on Barbarossa highlight the absolute blindness to facts which Nazism fanaticism causes. The notion that in this second major offensive a year after Barbarossa the Germans hadnt learnt to established robust supply lines is mind boggoling. Talk about putting all their eggs in one basket, hoping for the best, preparing only for the best. Also Muc-off sticker repping you must be a mountain biker.
I am enjoying your Stalingrad videos and as I listen to your comments some thoughts occured to me. The objective of blocking the Volga from the Soviets shipping oil again {in my veiw} shows the narrow thinking of German army commanders. A simple solution of mining the river using HE111 and aerial sea mines could have achieved this earlier and quicker. This was a tactic used very successfully by the British against the Danube later in the war.This in my opinion shows the narrow, one dimensional thinking of the Germans in both world wars. Army tactics first and air and navy as mere instruments to aid that success. Jonace
Whether or not crossing the Volga was part of the strategic plan, crossing the Volga north and south of Stalingrad would have enabled tactical encirclement of Stalingrad and eliminated resupply across the water and ice, the same thing that kept Leningrad going.
I think that taking Stalingrad or the Caucasus oil fields is only a temporary victory, the Soviets were still planning and preparing for Operation Uranus and Little Jupiter in '43 and they'd still have the material and manpower needed for this which might not break the Germans and the 5th Army like it did in our timeline but it would still be a hit that the German supply lines wouldn't be able to really cope with. Plus the Russian scorched earth policy meant that even when oil fields were captured by the German army they were virtually unusable and even if they were the oil would need to be transported back to Romanian for refining, then sent back to actually be used; meanwhile the Russian supply line was incredibly short and they were receiving huge amounts of vehicles, tanks, weapons and fuel from the Allies so even losing their oilfields they could in theory have gotten a good supply of oil and fuels from the Americans like they did with aircraft fuel. Love the videos Tik :)
So I think something is being missed in this - I don't think it is a real problem for TIK's point but these things should be mentioned. The Volga was itself a potential supply line. It is true that the Germans didn't have any vessels for use on the river, but the Soviets were moving oil by the river (the reason for trying to cut the river in the first place) so efforts could have been made to capture such vessels. I live in a major river city, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, and there are always barges and tugs going and coming; it would not be hard to capture one or more tugs and tows if a concerted effort was made, even if there were some soldiers aboard the tugs protecting them. Of course, the best place to transfer supplies on to such tows would have been Stalingrad, so taking it still seems like wise move, but perhaps someone smarter than I could find an alternative for the Germans. Also, those little rivers on the map TIK mentions? I sincerely doubt they are of any import to the supply situation. The largest of the distributaries of Volga shown, the Akhtuba, has a flow rate of 153 cubic meters a second; it runs from approximately Stalingrad to the Caspian Sea. The Volga at Astrakhan has a flow rate of 8,060 cubic meters a second, making the Akhtuba's flow approximately 2% of that of the Volga proper. I can't even find any sources to suggest that it is navigable, which figures given what my experience tells me. Now, various modifications have been made to the Volga since 1942-3, but you could double the flow of the Akhtube or any of the other distributaries in the region and it would make no difference to their practical viability as logistical conduits to substitute for the Volga in even a partial sense. Whereas I know that Europe has very few large rivers, I'm just a guy who lives on the Ohio river and likes water, and I was able to look at the map TIK showed and realize those distributaries couldn't be significant; Paulus would have had someone around him that would have had the same reaction I had, and if he didn't that was a serious oversight. The point being, Stalingrad isn't really any better of a place to cut the Volga than anywhere else in the region, except for its status as a notable city and rail hub. This isn't to cast aspersions on TIK though. TIK is from England and there aren't any rivers in England, at least not in the sense we mean it in America (or Russia, I presume) so he wasn't to know.
@@TheImperatorKnight I'm going at the pace of the Wehrmacht's logistical support. ;p On serious note, been dividing my time between Savo Island and the Arctic Convoy's (Former for work, about one ship there. Latter for personal reading. Abandoning ship in an Arctic winter is hell.) And David Stahel. I'm using his audio book, I like it for the narrative, but I do miss having the maps and tables laid out to get an idea of place. Ever run into that issue?
"I do miss having the maps and tables laid out to get an idea of place. Ever run into that issue?" Yes! Constantly! This is why I don't like buying books on Kindle, because the maps are usually displayed too small. You should have seen me working on the scripts for the next season of Stalingrad earlier today. Books open all over the desk showing maps, Photoshop open on one screen with three different maps in different tabs, and other maps Anton Joly had uploaded for me on Google Drive open on another. All to figure out who and what was where :) But there's never enough maps, and if there are, they're awful!
@@TheImperatorKnight It's a monumental task when there are so many units, both Soviet and German. I'm a bit of the same way with my writing. I currently have 12 tabs open on my PC, with primary/secondary articles posted, as well has a stack of monographs by my feet for this article. I still feel like I don't enough, and that my end product will be lacking for one small naval battle. I applaud your work with the Battlestorm series. I know these videos take a lot. Do you plan to visit Russia when all of this is over to see the sights yourself?
Hey Tik,I have been entertaining a question for a while...what if the germans used their famed paratroopers to captured the oil fields.There would have been a lot of chaos behind the front lines.Even though the logistics would have played its part,but was this really the case???Early Thanks for the reply,keep making these videos.
It took 6th Army 21 days to get from the Don to the outskirts of the city and assault it. How did they conclude that they would take Stalingrad easily? They didn t have enough provisions for an attack, they were forced to take divisions from Army Group A to approach the city. They should ve cleared the Orlovka area and the Soviet bridgeheads over the Don starting with the 13th of September and then stayed in deffensive waiting for Army Group A to take the Caucasus and then both formations go to Volga and Astrakhan. This way they were keeping the initial length of the 6th army front line and dangers on the flanks would have been reduced. The supplies would ve been enough for everyone in AG B, including for the Axis allied armies.
Hi Ti, thanks for the video. 1) As for the hindsight in only isolating Stalingrad, that's true but only for August. But the battle lasted three months. When they saw after two or three weeks that it takes too much of the summer time they needed for offensive, they should have given it another thought. 2) Even cutting off Volga river transport wouldn't stop the Soviet oil flowing towards refineries in Siberia (I read that most refineries in Baku were uninstalled and moved to Siberia leaving Baku only as an oil mining area, from which Soviet gained about 12 million tons per year, less than pre-war). Soviets still transported oil by ships to Atyrau in northern Caspian Sea and then by rail and if that was stopped by Luftwaffe after capturing Astrakhan, they still shipped oil to Krasnovodsk (currently Turkmenbashi) opposite to Baku from which it went further by rail. Theoretically they could use even the newly finished railway to Iran and further east along southern coast of the Caspian Sea. This option would also enable western allies to provide rolling stock.
You, Mark Fenton, and military history visualized are easy, by far some of the best channels on here. All evidence based and well sourced. No grandstanding or moralizing. Just tell us the facts as they are.
Dont exist south side or north side of the river. Existeted right or left side of the river. Thank you, your video is number one. The best what I ever seen
So what WERE the logistics of the Soviets moving oil up from the south? Tankers or barges to Astrakhan? Barges along the Volga? How much if any was moved by that rail line along the Volga? Was it all refined? Where there any refineries further north? How much if any American refined petroleum passed through this route as opposed from the Arctic ports? Just a few things that have me wondering
Little fuel came from lend lease Diesel engines Industrial & Power plants don't need highly refined gasoline T34s that die in their first action don't need to worry much about fouling engine w crappy fuel
@@russell7489 history.army.mil/books/wwii/persian/chapter15.htm . . this source answered questions from the American/UK/ Persian gulf side but left me wondering about the Soviet logistics from the Caspian north.
As a person who understands nothing at all about war, it seems to me that city fighting would be avoided. So, if encircling the city achieves many of the strategic objectives, it seems like that would be considered at the time. I.e. 20/20 hindsight isn’t needed.
Fascinating discussion. When talking about blocking Stalingrad in the north 7:27 and blocking reinforcements from coming south on the west side of the Volga 10:05, there is also the question of Russian reinforcements and supplies being brought across the Volga into Stalingrad which apparently Paulus never considered. That to me was his biggest mistake although I don't know how practical it would have been for Paulus to attack from the north and south with the Volga on his left and right flanks respectively. If such moves were practical then Stalingrad could have been wrapped up toot sweet.
4:50 - The 16th motorized that was in Elista. It did send some pioneer troops to Astrakhan, but they were stopped by the Soviets. Weirdly enough, this Division did not move at all that autumn.
it's heartening to know that so many of your viewers are as passionate and observant as you are! I suppose this is how history ought to be don, with everyone discussing what they've learned and evolving the story together
If you think about it, everyone who's watching this video must have had an interest in the subject matter, otherwise they wouldn't have clicked on it. And each have done their own readings, or viewings, and have different perspectives on the same subject. This is different to say school or university where you might get students who like one historical topic, but not the other, or are only doing it to get a degree
Also, I've pinned your comment because I think everyone deserves to see it :) history lies in the heart of the debate!
@TIK but what if Italy defeated Greece and Hitler didnt have to postpone operation barbarosa by month?
@aurimixas - for reasons I will get into in a future video (going to be a while because I'm still gathering evidence), they couldn't have attacked before June, regardless what happened in Greece or the Balkans
@@aurimixas was the roads in the soviet Union not a problem during that time? Still to muddy, i thougt i heard that was one of multiple reasons they dit not attack earlyer
Guy at a party, shows up with a box: "Here's the case of beers I promised."
TIK, already opening it up to check: "But is this really the case?"
:D
*vsauce music starts playing*
Episode #2319804578098123560 of
"Yes Germany made a bad choice, but it was the *best* bad choice available to them at that point"
Germany at ww2 like
"Damned if I do, damned if I don't eh?" - Paulus
*Ah yes, I get the 3rd place bronze medal.*
Technically 5th, but I'll let you off ;)
@@TheImperatorKnight what is your profession?
You must have studied history.
@Muhamed Muratovic - this is my profession! And yes, I have a degree in history, although that's meaningless. History is studied via books and sources, not in lecture halls
@@Go-hard-or-go-home "what is your profession?"
He's a potter, sir.
(let's see if anyone gets the reference)
Manstein the egoistic
Rommel the fast
Guderian the disobedient
Paulus the hopeless
Because Stalingrad is worth 30 vp when ch is useful in getting the Soviets to capitulate.
Who cares for victory points, just go all the way to the Pacific! Oh, and overrun British ME and India from the north while you're at it
Hey, if it works in hoi4 XD.
I still need to go beyond the Urals to make them capitulate and even if the soviets dont have an army anymore my panzers need a month just to get from a province to another for the level of infastracture, now I understand why the germans had so much supply issues XD
@@janehrahan5116 Soviets got enough VPs further east. Taking Stalingrad won't make them capitulate. :)
There's also an upgradeable aluminium factory and you need aluminium for those planes!
This is a really interesting to learn about, this isn’t a topic you hear about often.
This is honestly one of the reasons I love watching TIK. Really close attention to detail from major operations to even the most minor of skirmishes on the Eastern Front. Can't find many other channels that make the information digestible while also covering material to such a thorough extent.
I agree! Most accounts say entering the city was the mistake, but I'm not so sure it was
@@TheImperatorKnight you are debunking the theory and German high command excuse Hitler was insane
I realy liked the fine videos you make and the other couple of guys who work so hard to put out great videos ! I ve noticed that each creator has their own style so it gives me a realy complete view of a subject that all of you might be covering ! thanks .
@@TheImperatorKnight Entering arguably not, but insisting for months certainly was a mistake.
I'm glad I was able to be a small help. Also this sounds minor but thank you for pronouncing my name correctly, lots of people don't manage it on the first try, I'm used to it obviously but so its always a pleasant surprise when somebody manages to get in on the first try. Lots of other great comments you highlighted with some equally great points. This says a lot about the quality of your audience. Keep up the great work!
I'm glad I managed to get your name right because normally I mess names up! 😂 But yes, thank you for your comment last time, and this time too!
Worth noting the rail road to Astrakhan is not just on the otherwise of the river, all the green stuff on the east bank of the Volga is a swamp. not the best tank country. That swamp also meant that it was the place for the Soviets to fight it out with the Germans because the Germans were never going to isolate the city.
Good point, very true
Wouldn’t the siege of Stalingrad have been pointless if it was only on one side of the river ? Reinforcements and supply could have just crossed the river from the east at night.
Very true. It would have been like the siege of Leningrad - neverending
Good point. They could get supplies to Stalingrad at night and that is also what the Soviets did during the battle of Stalingrad.
@@TheImperatorKnight And that dragged on even with the city being entirely surrounded for much of the siege. Of course with Leningrad, unlike Stalingrad, the Germans were fine with a siege since their goal was to cause maximum civilian deaths, tie up Soviet forces, and destroy the city in the long run - with no ideological or pragmatic strategic goals calling for physically taking possession of it on an urgent basis.
They would have still been blocking the Volga north of the city, as well as blocking Soviet reinforcements from easily traveling south to interfere with their campaign in the Caucus. That alone might have been worth maintaining the siege until they could make more progress further to the south.
@@Raskolnikov70 But there is still that pesky dual track rail line on the East side of the Volga coming from Astrakhan that the Soviets could use to move oil, not to mention the ship traffic to Turkmenbusy and Chapayev and their dual track rail lines. Very early on in 1942 the Soviets started filling water proof Cisterns and towing long lines of them with tug boats across the Caspian. When did this start? Roughly when the Germans cut the single track rail line between Rostov and Stalingrad. Those darn "Untermensch", they out smarted the Germans yet again. So blocking the Don may have slowed and hindered, but it didn't block.
Crazy how you cover so much history that I would never find anywhere else. Although having a broad understanding of ww2 is important, the details are what really show you what kind of things happen in war.
I find these counter counterfactuals very informative. They show how what happened at Stalingrad was, in many ways, nearly inevitable.
Yes, I agree. I think the phrase "nearly inevitable" hits the nail on the head. There were a few choices that could have made a difference if they'd done everything perfectly, but otherwise all roads led to destruction
@@TheImperatorKnight I've heard you say before that Fall Blau was the last throw of the dice for Hitler. Witch means that their probably was a slight chance of a Germany victory had they acted differently in 1942.
Have your views changed on this at all? Do you think it's less likely or more likely than you thought before?
Not taking the seemingly lightly defended city would lead to a perfect brigdehead for the soviets and therfore would force large amounts of german forces to defend the siege.
They had the same problem outside of Leningrad in 1941 leading to an entire army group getting stuck in that area.
Correct. Taking the city was a must if you wanted to make a good defensive line.
Woo, immortalized in a TIK video. This is the greatest moment of my life!... Dont tell my wife and children.
Hahaha okay I won't tell them 😂
Salute, Comrade, your name will never be forgotten! :)
Don't worry, your wife already knows.
Congratulations my friend!
you not married yet kid
Fantastic video, thank you taking the time to do these and all your other videos. By far the best ww2-content on UA-cam
My pleasure! Not sure why, but I'm really really eager to make Stalingrad content at the moment :) cheers!
@@TheImperatorKnight So nice :)
The more I learn about Case 🅱️lue, the more Iget an impression that it had no chance... All the "bad" decisions turned out to be the least bad option, and that German command didn't really have a choice.
Eugene Bebs, same. And now I realize, it's because of TIK's Stalingrad series.
@Adam Dziobek very difficult for that to happen - remember, the supply lines were severely overextended, and the Nazis had to deal with keeping Leningrad locked, the many Resistance movements in France, Poland and other countries in Hitler's domain, AND had to deal in keeping the British out of the continent, all the while praying that the USA did not get involved in the war.
And we are talking about Russia - you know, the guys who BURNED their own capital to not only deny any shelter and spoiliage, but just to spite Napoleon.
@Adam Dziobek the USSR had transfered good part of its industrial base to the other side of the Urals, making the loss of Moscow, while a desastrous morale loss, not a very damaging one in an infrastructural and logistical sense. And even with this, the Siberian regions had gigantic deposits of methane and oil, allowing a broad mechanized force to make a counterattack in imense numbers.
Combine this with the already rising numbers of industrial production in the USSR to the point that the Russians could produce more weapons, tanks, airplanes, ammo and equipment that the Germans could - each one simple, cheap, durable and easy to use and keep then their German counterparts, allowing even the most ignorant peasant to be trained in its use in a matter of weeks.
The matter was more then conquering Moscow, but sheer industry: while Germans did Quality, the Russians had Quantity, and even Field Marshal Paulus saw the attack on the Soviet Union a straight path to suicide because Germany could not carry on a war in such a scale under their limited resources.
Thank you for making history interesting again. That schools are able to reduce history to boring subject has always amazed me.
I've said it a lot, but it's worth repeating: there's a difference between school and education. The State School System is deliberately designed to make you be uninterested in education, so that you're willing to leave all the thinking to those above you in the Social hierarchy and not rock the boat
@@TheImperatorKnight unfortunately spot on
thank you for your videos
There was still another reason to compell Paulus to take Stalingrad: Operation Barbarrossa contemplated reaching the Don and the Volga, dig-in and use them as a defence moat. That makes a sensible border on the map, except in the 70 km between those two rivers in the area of Stalingrad, where a land front/border would have to be implemented. Imperative was to stablish it a little to the Nord of the city, to command the river where the width is minimal (as you point). So, the city had to fall. Anyway, they had been before in a hundred urban ratkriegs, comming always on top. It´s just that the Russians, knowing the STRATEGIC importance of the city, made their desperate stand. And, for those obsessed with the silly tale about the namesake, consider this: had the city been on the other side, the Germans would have left it quite alone.
Paulus botched the battle outside stalingrad and let the enemy get inside. Otherwise it would have fallen easily. Plus they made many other mistakes like pounding it to rubble which made it much much harder to take over. When von brauchist died the 6th army's fate was sealed
@@LTPottenger There´s a widespread misconception about the rubble trap the germans fell in, that the ruins of Stalingrad were a killing ground for them. But not for Russians, that (somehow) were more apt for this sort of warfare. Well, the Germans lost, didn´t they? So, the point is proven. But, is this really the case? To begin with, statistics show that the Russian losses there and then were much higher; it was a killing ground for both, only that more so for the Russians. The real cause for the German defeat was no other that the simple and decisive fact that they were surounded: no ammo, no food, no nothing, because the Luftwaffe was unable to cope. The best soldier, when starving, frozen and unable to throw anything but stones to the ennemy, is doomed. And, how did they end up bagged? Because they (Hitler) refused to withdraw and the forces corelation whas what it was. Put in another way: if it had not been in Stalingrad, another place would be remembered as the turning point, because the Russians had more men and resources than the Germans.
@@Tico.Altacuna If you can't move quickly it slows down the attack and that makes it much harder. It also favors snipers and makes it harder to use vehicles
And snipers are for defense mainly. Stalingrad is where the russians got the most use of snipers in the whole war
@@LTPottenger Such a huge battle can only be viewed trough a wide-angular lens; forget about anecdotic microscopic issues, like snipers. How many did they kill? One hundred? One thousand? We are talking about hundreds of thousands! And do not forget that the Germans also had snipers. Your other point, the mobility, has more substance; the Germans were masters in the war of movement; this hard nut they had to crack was not the situation they preferred. Still, let´s not forget that, when it came to vehicles and fuel, tha Russians had a huge advantage. Which they put to good use bringing in reinforcements from as far as Siberia and bringing about the large-scale encirclement.
Good thing that you upload the video's around the same time, because this is the 3 time UA-cam dont tell me it's up.
Also i was looking for the new video they are always a high point on mondays
The 'notification' system needs to be notified that it's failing to notify people with the 'notifications' it's not notifying people with
@@TheImperatorKnight well you do talk about ww2. a topic people absolutely must not learn about if we want a trilogy.
great stuff as always tik, your subscribers are invested enough to actively look for your content!
I received this notification, I guess yt missed a few noti's and let them get through. This missing notifications problem is the reason that when I come online, I refresh my latest videos several times, but probably do not catch all of them - but, who is too know what they have missed? The level of incompetence is appalling and leads one to suspect malfeasance when yt has no suitable explanation.
Another great video. Thanks for the great insights TIK!
History Hustle Hé! Jij óók hier?
According to what I've read there were several German patrols that made it all the way to the outskirts of Astrakhan and the Caspian sea. One even blew up a supply train and took some prisoners. I just find it incredible that a few German soldiers made it that far.
Yes, there's one video from Mark Felton about it; i.e the further east the German went.
RE: A possible 'Siege of Stalingrad':
The Op. Blue plan doesn't really specify the need to capture the city, but it makes very clear that the primary objective for Army Group A is to secure a Don-Caspian Line for defensive purposes. The decision to take the city was made by the field commanders, not 'Meddling Hitler', based on their analysis of their resources and comparative strengths with the enemies, as German doctrine encouraged. If Paulus & Co. made this decision, they clearly thought it the most appropriate tactic for completing their assigned strategy, and I think for good reason.
If the western bank of Stalingrad had been secured, the amount of German troops required to stop the Soviets re-crossing is minimal compared to how many would be needed to establish a semi-siege line around the city. All those troops were needed to secure the flanks of the city and the rest of the objectives along the Volga, and so a quick strike to the city makes perfect sense. From Paulus and the Germans' side of affairs it really wasn't a tactical blunder; it made sense, and he had the forces to achieve it.
What tilted the balance was the stunningly brave defence of the city by the Soviet defenders, as is made clear in account after account and recount after recount. Most armies, even Soviet ones, would not defend an exposed objective so fiercely when there is a nice river to hide behind, but these guys did, and not only did they but they defended it harder than any other position on any front anywhere in the war that I know of. That is why this battle is so extraordinary and worth remembering in my opinion.
Really, everything 6th Army did made complete sense, and by the time they could have really realised what becoming so focused on this one objective and pouring all their strength into it would cause, it was too late for any alternative to be viable. It really is just one of those things where no one could know, except those specific soviet defenders, how bloody hard the fight would be.
If you have the cards, the dice and the troops to do it. You might as well do it or get cold feet about things. If the enemy is reeling back and you got him on the rope, you hit him and defeat him. Not give him a chance to steady himself and come back.
Defence of Stalingrad was 80% propaganda and 20% competent calculation - if opponent triumphs you in mobility and troop training (only advantages at this point), you try to take this advantage from him, by bogging him down in pointless siege for which his army is thoroughly unprepared and many weaknesses of your side are largely negated by them fighting defence in urban and fortified terrain.
The thing is - I don't think the Germans actually did have the mobility advantage. Using their armor effectively in the field would have cost them a lot of fuel that they just didn't have. The cost of city fighting is blood. I'm guessing that they knew that even with what the Germans viewed as superior German soldiers armed with superior German equipment, it was still going to be a bloody fight but it was the only option available to them.
It did make sense until October. By this time it should have been clear that 6th Army was in for another month yet, should it persist assaulting the city. At this stage Paulus was against it, as well as Weichs at the army group level, only Hitler pushed for it. By this time all strategic benefit was gone, and it was only a matter of prestige. Since the Caucasus could not be captured before the end of the year, Hitler needed another prize, and Stalingrad was the only one within his reach, or so he thought.
What made Stalingrad a disaster was not the failure to occupy the entire city, nor would this cause the surrender of the German 6th Army. It because a disaster because the 6th Army was completely surrounded and the Germans could not break through the encirclement to rescue the 6th Army, nor could they break out. They could not be supplied or relieved or evacuated and General Winter did the rest.
it is interesting to see the point of view of the situation of the time, many people blame generals, commanders and other figures for their mistakes without seeing the context that was going through. looking nowadays, that we already know everything that happened is easy to point out the errors
I’m starting to come to the conclusion that the war was lost when the Soviets outran the pincers during the beginning stages of Fall Blau. Really enjoying the Battlestorm!
If you think the lack of oil was the reason for defeat, Germany may have lost before WW2 was started
TIK That is the most likely reason. When you look at Operation Barbarossa, you see that a lot of the issue that Germany had came back to their lack of fuel. Even in when they could achieve victory, it happened in spite of their poor logistics. Thankfully, Germany did lack the fuel necessary to win the war.
@@spicytuna421 My conclusion is that Germany won. When examining the sentences imposed on criminals, the punishments handed down by German judiciary are harsher than those of the Americans. Perhaps a draw on the eastern front.
Also, the Vietnam War is considered a defeat, even though it was milder on an annual basis than the current virus. In reality, propaganda defeat.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 German armed forces might have lost, but Germany and Germans are undisputed victor of WW II. Look at this objectively:
- they have massacred any competition of any sort (including economic one) from East and by hands of post-war Polish, Russian etc government effectively implemented Generalplan Ost v.2.0 anyway; these countries are suppliers of cheap labour and cheap resources and waste bucket
- they had brought down ancient local Western competitors: Great Britain lost the Empire and France is now effectively subservient and vastly smaller economy than German one, also, with reduced colonial presents
- using mostly American money, they have built themselves political and economical hegemony over Europe and succeeded in driving most of US military presence from it, without firing single shot; they have buffer zones from any single directrion wherever you look
@@piotrd.4850 I guess Hitler was playing 4D chess all along
This is an amazing channel. ✅
Everything is so well researched, and not biased.
triple kudos to Vitross! that was absolutely brilliant!!!!
Yes!
Thankyou for the shorter videos, they are easier to digest and dont crowd a person's time schedule for the day.
Yes, I've been posting a mix of longer and shorter videos recently, which is unusual. Some people don't like shorter videos, but others prefer them. I think a mix of the two is probably right
I have just ended your video about replacements in the 6th Army. So your timing is perfect man!
12:37. Were not the Maikop oilfields on fire when they fell into German hands? They would have had to rebuild them completely which would have been a logistical challenge in itself.
That makes this counterfactual a nonstarter. Maikop was of no immediate use to anyone.
Yes, the Maikop oilfields were destroyed. But they started to rebuild them. I can't remember exactly how much oil they managed to extract from them by the time they had to abandon the area, but it was basically nothing
@@TheImperatorKnight I'll try looking the figures up but i did see them some time ago when i was looking at oil production for the various nations. In the grand scheme of things, it was rather trivial. BTW-Look up Operation Schamil if you haven't already seen it.
It's not so much that Maikop wasn't useful, it's that Maikop was just the first out of several oil fields (Grozny, Baku) the Germans needed to get to use at best or wreck at least. While for Germany getting Soviet oil for itself was ideal, it was probably "good enough" to deny that oil to the Soviets. Falling back on the far lesser amount of oil imported from the West would probably force the Soviets to choose between fueling their military vehicles and supplying their agricultural sector with tractor fuel and fertilizer: fight and be starved into submission, or eat and be defeated on the battlefield.
@@jpjpjp453 Just looked up the Wiki page on the OP, sounds like something I'd do. Send in Commandos ahead, capture needed objectives, and link up with them as quickly as possible. Brits used a fair number of Commando raids. Wonder how much the others really used them? Since their effect is many times that of their actual numbers.
@@calumdeighton Commando raids which are intended as quick in and out strikes are far different than those which require the commando force to hold until relieved. Given the distances involved and the stiffness of Soviet resistance, along with the Soviet practice of pre positioning sabotage units inside of "conquered" cities and installations, if the Germans had used special forces to hold objectives, these units would either have never been relieved, or, if relieved as planned, would have had nothing but wreckage to turn over to the follow on forces.
8:57 - Not impassible. Those early Tank armies were very weak & struggling. But strategically the entire Don front for its 500-600 miles was undefendable: The more the Germans got to the east, the more it was easy to the Soviets to cut them off
That's why all efforts should have been concentrated on securing the Don Front. This was the best Germany could do.
13:32 The city is called KrasnOdAr not KrasnAdOr
Краснодор, кразива одор, or something. Its impossible. You Russians. How can we know!
@@nikopjotr2953 you must know, you are the Slavic speaker too.
@@nikopjotr2953 don't bullshit us, brat, you know how
@@vadimpm1290 I am Finnish but i have trained the language of our neighbours! And finally.. I have used it.
@@nikopjotr2953 So, I have been fooled by your Slavic - looking nick.)
Love watching your videos Tik. You bring a very fresh perspective to this and you don't just accept what others have said. It makes you think.
This is an informative and thought provoking video. So many factors involving the Fall Blue timing and how logistical/supply issues impacted the plan. And the whole train route discussion added a new wrinkle. This might just be the most robust and informative 15 minutes on UA-cam.
The whole Stalingrad series summed up what TIK has been trying to say about Germany and World war two.
A thought just came into my head: A decent 'what-if' wargame exercise over July-August 1942 along the southern half of the Eastern Front might be interesting:
Based on the known constraints -- supply, scheduled reinforcements, replacements -- how would Army Group South (A & B thereafter) have fared if:
1. Army Group South has an additional army available, while there are no changes in supply, scheduled reinforcements, and replacements. Would it have performed better than historically? If so, then by how much?
2. The order of battle, the existing rail and road networks remain unchanged. However, Army Group South starts out with larger supply stockpile than historically. Would it have performed better than historically? If so, then how much?
Last time I was this early, Chuikov still had ice in his drink though I don't know where he got it from
He got it from Shumilov though I don't know where he got it from
Russians like their vodka ice cold (from the freezer, outside, whatever) but don't drink it with ice. So I'm, er, told
Old cossack houses have special basements where they have ice in big pieces stored, easy)
@@TheImperatorKnight Cossack country has large cellars with freezing temperatures where they stored milk, meat, fish, etc. Kinda of acted as modern day refrigerators and freezers.
@@IrishCarney I too have been "told" the same thing on several (pretty blurry) occasions.
Another very informative video TIK, great!
One thing I was considering: In your previous Battlestorm video, you said Army Group A attacking Stalingrad alongside Army Group B would have caused severe logistical issues, which I agree with. But what if A was just kept as a strategic reserve, thereby lessening the strain on the supply line, and allowing Paulus to recuperate losses and plug holes in his line? If A was used as a strategic reserve, could Paulus have taken the city, and do you think the Wehrmacht could have contained the Soviet bridgeheads on the Don?
Tik your totally awesome not only do you go through a ton of literature but you are willing to listen to the people who obviously know the subject matter differently than you and your willing to speak about different aspects and opinions. Thank you
Really liked the new thumbnail style! Good work overall! Regards
Glad you like them! Terri (the graphic designer) has been doing them, and she's been doing a very good job :)
Basically, you state that the Germans had to use railroads because of the lack of oil. However, I've the feeling that even with all the oil and trucks in the world, the Germans would still need to control the railroads and operate them efficiently (which they did not historically), the roads for trucks and cars in the USSR were just not able to handle the amount of supply needed (keep in mind that one train can transport several hundreds of trucks worth of supply). It doesn't mean that trucks were not important, trains are quite inflexible, so you need trucks to go from a station a few kilometers behind to the various points/units on the frontline.
That also brings another question, in your documentary, you frequently mention combat units waiting for oil/supply to keep advancing, but was it only a local issue as bringing supply to a combat zone is always a tough ask? Or was it a more systemic issue, with all the supply chain being immobilized due to lack of oil? Are there the same kind of accounts of shortages from logistical units of the Werhmarcht as seen as in combat units?
www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/3/9/the-influence-of-railways-on-military-operations-in-the-russo-german-war-19411945
Pierre-Francois CARPENTIER every body needed the railroad back then, the economics of the 30-ties and 40-ties are relying on rail transportation. This is simply a flawed statement and false argument.
This! This is my favourite TIK video. I have watched them all(or not the QOTD-stuff yet). I have seen you fx destroy the South African historians and all of the bad history in Kurland. Earlier you have agknowledged mistakes but the honesty in your comments in this one felt so real. Even TIK can be human - at least sometimes. Love your stuff man. You are a constant motivation for me. Take care and carry on!
I can confirm - I am human... I think ;) cheers!
this is one of your best videos answering a very pointed question. I think it needs more exposure
Don't understand what the first, second, place comments are all about? But I've always wondered if bypassing the city was an option for the Wehrmacht, thanks for exploring the tactical and strategic reasons about this..
People like being "1st!" in the comments. It's just a bit of fun :)
But yes, after some of the great comments last week, I had to follow it up with this
15160th!
Yes I reluctantly realised this last episode lol and also no if they had taken all of the caucasus still not a win for germany.
You brought up a good point!
Not a complete war-winning win, but it significantly enhances the Axis position, morale, and political power. I think people underestimate the knock-on effects outside of Blau that affected Germany's position.
Taking the Caucasus does two things, gives Germany more oil, eventually. They have to rebuild the oilfield and then ship the oil to Romania to be refined until they can get the captured refineries rebuilt. So it will be a while before they get the benefits from the captured territory. Secondly, it deprives the Soviets of that oil. 80% of soviet oil came from the Caucasus region. Everything ran on oil, their industry, their agriculture, their transportation systems, their military. Lose 80% of their oil supplies and the soviets are close to the point of collapse.
I am always very grateful for the educational and highlighting character of your videos. Excellent work.
'whose capture is not deemed necessary' (Stalingrad). Germany had sent massive refinery infrastructure and experts with Army Group A, including a huge pipeline which the Soviets captured and subsequently used, so the Germans were well aware and prepared to refine the captured oil wells as efficiently as possible. They weren't that stupid to believe they could just roll up to an oil well and start pumping crude into their vehicles.
History is so treacherous when it comes to try to understand it and predict an outcome even if we change a small detail. That's why is so fascinating.
Another small detail no one mentions was the natural death of von Reichenau prior Fall Blau. He was the original 6th army commander, later promoted to Field Marshall of Army Group South. He was far more aggressive and experienced than Paulus or von Weichs. Maybe in charge, he would have assaulted Stalingrad earlier while the city was only defended by Militias and NKVD battalions
Though I don't think the overall outcome would be different, only in time. Stalin knew this war was of total victory or total loss. He would have fight to the end I think.
Very interesting and useful addon to the previous episode. And excellent quality comments too for sure.
The target wasn't the Stalingrad-Astrakhan railway, which ran beyond the Volga, but rather a maneuver to help Army Group A capture the Grozny-Astrakhan one. As for the Millerovo-Stalingrad supply route, it was clogged from the very beginning and never delivered the needed amount.
Of course besieging the city without striving to capture it at all costs was the best option, that's what I always write in such a discussion.
Arguably, the war was already lost after the defeat at Moscow. A German victory at Stalingrad wouldn't necessarily have meant winning the war in the east, this would rather have given some more time. But then again the chances were about even. And of course defeat was definitely the end of it, Germany could no longer win. The long and bloody fighting of the last two years were just delaying the inevitable outcome. The only chance left was the development of the atom bomb.
"Of course besieging the city without striving to capture it at all costs was the best option, that's what I always write in such a discussion."
This is true, but I would say - only in hindsight. Plus, the Germans couldn't siege the city properly because they'd need to cross the Volga to do that... so it's not necessarily a perfect solution either.
@@TheImperatorKnight A semi-siege would have been sufficient. Subjected to incessant bombing, the city wouldn't have been much of a bridgehead for a Soviet offensive. But the Red artillery could built up on the other side of the Volga, too.
Tik, it feels really weird to watch one of your videos with only 15min (i know its boring for some but i became addicted that is bizarre to see something less than 25min but still your videos are always enjoyable) .
Keep up 💯
I know, I've sort of been going back and forth between shorter and longer videos recently. There's a few factors for that, but I do think it's good to have a variety. There was quite a while where all I posted was hour+ long videos, and a lot of it was waffle or not properly scripted or properly edited. Now, I'm trying to make the videos as well-edited as I can, and only as long as they need to be.
For example, I could have pulled up a few more comments for this video and talked about them, but most of the main points were already raised so they wouldn't have added a lot more to the discussion. Thus, they were cut. Saves you and the others a bit of time, and me a bit of time editing too so I can work on other things (like the scripts for the next season of Battlestorm Stalingrad!)
The original assignment was to block the traffic on the Wolga using artillery only.Paulus passed the possibility to entrap the retreating armies,before they entered Stalingrad.The 4th Panzerarmy was ready to flank and link up with the 6th army behind the 62 and 63 armies.Unfortunatly,Paulus was not an active field commander and more the calculating staff officer.He waited for 2 days to regroup his troops and thus let them get away.Might have been that after this,capturing Stalingrad became a prestige object.On the siege itself:von Richthofen made the wrong decision,bombing the city to rubble.He should have concentrated on the resupply and reinforcement crossing the Wolga.
But after the hard fighting to reach Stalingrad and with the Soviets still able to get supplies and men into the city from the East - I think one could have foresaw a city fight was a bad idea.
Looking from an logistical and industrial perspective, the task ahead of them was too immense.
The oil has to be extracted in occupied territory while being threatened by large armies in the immediate vicinity. And that's assuming they get to repair the virtually destroyed infrastructure the Soviets have razed. Then this raw oil has to be transported to the coast of an occupied nation and loaded onto tankers in the Black sea, the axis didn't possess even a remotely adequate amount of tankers for this. These tankers would then need to survive the journey across the Black sea, while everyone on the planet is aware of their presence and strategic importance. Then they would need to successfully unload in Romania, given it being the only Axis power in the vicinity with even near the infrastructure to refine this oil and make the derivatives they need.
The infrastructure in Romania would need to be vastly expanded, since it was already tasked with producing and refining as much oil as it can.
If they were successfull in this refining they would then need to send all those derivatives back almost the same way they came from. The railway gauge in the USSR is not compatible at all and transporting fluids over rail is in itself quite daunting, problematic and expensive. Not to mention the constant partisan problems, railway sabotage would be a primary concern.
So the same tankers would have to be tasked with taking the oil derivatives back across the Black sea. When they arrive, they would need to unload and distribute all that fuel to the necessary army formations, most of which are in combat (since the Soviets are not just going to sit on their hands and do nothing)...
To avoid this, they were hoping to capture refineries in the caucausus, even training and airdroping insurgents (example: Operation Schamil) to capture and protect these installations ahead of the main German army. Even if they were successfull in holding these and assuming they restore and expand the infrastructure and get it working, they would still need to transport all that fuel over occupied land with an incompatible railroad gauge while fighting off both partisans and the main Soviet army.
This is all assuming the ostfront would get all of the fuel, the rest of Axis territory is also severely lacking in fuel and there would be no real viable way to supply it.
You're on top of your game this week. Very seldom are so many comments featured, but all brought thought provoking points. The Don bend and bridge heads hadn't made much sense to me either. I didn't realize middle eastern oil was of a different type, needing it's own refinery and lacking in standing infrastructure. Capturing the oil wells alone never made sense to me, you need refineries to make is usable.
The problem with sieging the city is that you still have supply problems. Could they really have supplied their armies enough to sustain a seige? Would the Soviets have counter attacked before the Axis could starve them out? It may look like a better option than going into the city, but when you are already experiencing supply problems, it's easy to see why digging in for a siege is not high on your list of actions.
Second nice video as always
Yes you are! And thanks!
@@TheImperatorKnight yourwellcome
Hey tik could you make a video about the "fasist" movements in the other axis powers in Europe at the time of ww2 it would be interesting topic don't you think?
Is there any information on the cost and effectiveness on lying new tracks during the war?
yes, i was wandering for that too.
Sadly, without a free market and prices you cannot make economic calculations (see Mises, "Socialism," P103-105). So even if that data was available, it wouldn't tell you anything meaningful, because there's no free market in State military logistics.
I think the most prohibiting cost would have been "time"....
There was a considerable effort of the Reichsbahn Ost and also Eisenbahntransportabteilungen (Railroad transport units) of the Wehrmacht to just re-rail the lines in the conquered territories. And they didnt cought up to the frontline.
Constructing a completly new railroad isnt a small undertaking.
You need to survey the countryside for the best paths, since grades need to be avoided. Trains dont deal well with grades, so you want to have the paths as flat as possible.
The ground needs to be prepared for the tracks and the weight of the trains on top of it, you need a lot of material for building the right-of-way alone, be it gravel, steel, wood and whatnot. You cant just put rails on the ground, unless you build lightweight narrow gauge lines that cant haul the immense loads of materiel needed for an army during warfare.
Switches and yards and engine facilities need to be build, and thats quite time-consuming.
There were a lot of additional problems along the way as well, for example the water needed to be treated to be usable in german steam engines, so treatment facilities had to be build. Same thing for coal, the coal they got from the Donbas wasnt burning well in the german fireboxes. Communications/telegraphs needed to be build, security detachments had to be stationed etc...
And not to mention the cronical shortness of rolling stock and engines the Reichsbahn had to deal with.
@@herpderp6705 This is something near my mind. I am wondering how much in terms of resources is needed to draw from the war industry to build the new rail system. As an mech engineer, I know it is much more complex than a click in the box as shown in HOI3.
Regarding your 'hindsight' argument - once it became clear that Soviet resistance had stiffened and it was no longer possible to win quickly and easily in Stalingrad, would it not had been prudent to withdraw from the city and revert to the 'encirclement' plan that you outlined? Was there a convincing rationale for the Germans to continue long after they had started, or did they fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy?
"The city will fall any day now. Any day. It is going to fall. Trust me. It will fall. Any day now"
Hitler wanted Stalingrad as a political statement and a victory for the German people. Retreating or bypassing Stalingrad was never an option allowed to Paulus.
Your premise is refreshing, and I love it ... that history is not simply a matter of blindly believing some official version and considering that to be the irrefutable absolute truth. To me, it's sobering how much of history tends to be written by those with an ax to grind ... and it's not just written by the winners (as you pointed out) but the survivors such as Halder. But, even if the writing of history were all a good-faith effort, it's still difficult to get the most accurate depiction. It's more like a detective story ... there is a good US movie "Courage under Fire" in which an investigator is trying to essentially find the most accurate version of a recent military event -- essentially, trying to write history as accurately as reasonably possible -- and it's shown to be a daunting task. How messy people's epistemology is .. that plays a big part. Growing up, I thought that most things in the field of human endeavor were straightforward, and the complex things were all in engineering. How very much mistaken I was ... anyway, what I most love about your approach is that it fundamentally undermines the power of government propagandists by stripping them of the ability to credibly claim that they get to be the source of historical truth just because they happen to be in power.
Time to go to the pub with some Bluetooth headphones and have a pint whilst listening to the slow destruction of the 6th army!
"Good brews here mate"
"But is that really the case?"
"Here's your pint, that'll be four quid"
"You really want fiat paper currency?"
@@IrishCarney 😂
Gamma Ray IPA so certainly was the case
@ Wait the Americans forced the unwilling kid to watch? I call BS
I suspect that the answer as to why the Germans went to capture the city instead of going for a blockade to the north of it is actually very simple and the things you're saying are just on the brink of hitting on it. Fighting north of the city would have meant a big field battle with a lot of mechanized maneuver. This means they would have needed a lot of fuel to run their tanks, trucks, half tracks, armored cars, etc. From the point of view of Germany, at the time, the choice was spend a lot of fuel, that they didn't have, fighting in the open or spend a lot of blood fighting in close quarters.
Hi TIK, a video of railways and the eastern campaign would be very interesting. Its conquer , seccions converted, Rolling material, division and corps supplied by this lanes.
For example, the MILLEROVO hub seems to not be conected to Kiev. So how was the supply line up to it?
Great work tic, i enjoy these videos so much. Feels like a whole new chapter in ww2 never before explored.👌
Tik, next video can you please go into detail about the battle of Moscow, I was discussing the eastern front with some colleagues and they refused to believe there was ever a battle of Moscow, yes it wasn’t in Moscow, but it was a monumental battle, and in my opinion was the turning point on the eastern front, yes Stalingrad and Kursk were major battles, but I still believe Moscow was the turning point because the Germans never had the initiative after Moscow, please tell me if you agree/disagree, and keep up the amazing work.
Exactly. Had the Germans realised how overextended they are before resuming offensive for Moscow in November 1941, they could have saved 400 000 men and would have been in much better position for Fall Blau.
Sure it was.
@@jakubstanicek6726 They knew that their forces were over extended. The problem was that their intelligence told them that the Soviets were in worse shape then the attacking Germans were and that they had no viable reserves and no chance of launching a counterattack. Moscow was so close that most of the German generals succumbed to the infamous "one last push syndrome."
He needs to finish the Stalingrad series before trying to tackle a subject as immense as The Battle of Moscow!
Having said that, I second the motion - - yes - - TIK - - someday, I hope you will do a series on the amazing Battle of Moscow!
@@georgecromarty5372 Me too. And maybe I'll also get to this, by then!
I kind of want to isolate every time TIK has said “Hitler was right” or “Hitler was correct” and post it on Reddit where people will gobble it up
Lovecraft I think just being on Reddit highlights what a shithole it is. A great time waster but I’m not sure how far I’d make it without cute animals pictures and funny videos
This is also why I put on a 'voice' when I quote Hitler etc, because I know if I didn't, someone would isolate it and post it somewhere as "proof" that I'm a Nazi
@@TheImperatorKnight Yeah, Robert Zubrin does the same thing. The man's Jewish, with Holocaust victims in his family, and couldn't be a bigger anti Malthusian, anti Nazi, passionate anti racist etc, but when quoting Hitler he puts on an obviously insincere pompous voice, perhaps because as a defender of Columbus, American pioneers, etc he probably gets called the usual names
It be better if there was a video compilation, with time stamps and moments in other videos where TIK said it. He lists his sources. Might as well list the videos as well. 🤔
@@calumdeighton It would still be manipulative and misleading since most viewers would not bother to use the source list to check the context in each case.
And then there is also the small matter of converting the wide tracks of the Soviet Railroads into the standard European railroad gauge of 1453 mm. I wonder whether the rate at which this was accomplished could have influenced the German logistics situation during Fall Blau, maybe especially in regards to the supply problems experienced by the 6th Army.
Fun fact in 2007 I took a journey to Volgograd and came by train to the city from Moscow. It was a fairly mundane trip between the cities but Volgograd was and amazing place for any history nut to visit. I stayed in a historic Old Hotel on the railway station Square. I meet up with an Indian doctor that spoke really good English and Russian. We spent the night at a local restaurant, casino, night club, and banya had a great laugh and fun night. I spent the following day at the museum, mamyan Kurgan and saw the change of guards.
I only spent 2 days at Stalingrad/Volgograd something my tour planner didn't understand the pull to go.
That's why Hitler's uniform looked like the one of a national railway ticket issuer ;)
Seventeenth. Stick to tanks.
P.S. Germany could have won if it made more tigers.
Tigers fueled by what? German engineering and hope? Fuel was already desperate by this point
@@jamesp7509 I think he's making fun of tropes too common in TIK's comments
This has to be trolling. In case not... Germany wouldn't have had that many of them as they were produced in a single place, the Henschel works at Kassel. And don't forget the RAF and USAAF were within range for their heavy bombers.
@@jamesp7509 dude this is a joke._.
@@jpjpjp453 YES YES YES
I went to the supermarket and looked at some health info for a sandwich and said to myself "but is this really the case?"
I've been watching this channel for too long.
too long - or just the right amount of time? :D
No, not until you also talk about the health info as "a narrative" and ask whether it was written at the time as a diary or afterwards as memoirs
I don't understand why Hoth and Paulus didn't cross the Volga South and North of Stalingrad respectively encircling the city and having a bridgehead for further operations South to Astrakhan. Was this that hard to see at the time? They should have done the same as they did with Rostov and Kharkov.
First
Yep!
This is shocking, an acual first comment, a rare specimen indeed
Hey TIK, in addition to making the best documentary on Stalingrad ever made (and a lot has been made on the subject) you also raise some very intriguing questions.
But the counter question is what would have been changed even if he went to Astrakhan? Let’s assume that Paulus did reach the mouth of Volga (He could not have reached the city proper, since Astrakhan is on the opposite side of the river, and on top of that protected by an enormous delta, not exactly a tank country there). What would have been different? He would only have had a longer flank to protect. Let’s say 29.Mot and 14.Pz leave Stalingrad, pick up 16.Mot from Yelista along the way, somehow defeat 64th, 57th, 51st Armies and reach Caspian Sea. They leave behind additional 300 km of Volga front that has to be protected by at least 6 additional divisions (under the assumption that a division can somehow protect 50km of front). Assuming that they would have to leave 5 divisions to keep 62nd Army pocketed in the city, and that everything north of the city remains the same (5 divisions of XIV PzK and VIII AK protecting the northern shield, XI AK with 3 Divisions holding the Don front).
I don’t see how this might be any better for Germans. Actually, since the main force of 6th Army would be further away from the city, it could have only made Uranus much easier. And even something like a Big Saturn possible. And instead of trapping 6th Army, they could have gotten a much bigger prey.
When it got it’s supply lines cut in November, 6 Army was not able to move even a most modest 40km to breakout. Imagine they are stretched along Volga from Stalingrad to Astrakhan and all of the sudden the supply lines get cut.
They could have escaped a tactical disaster of getting the 6th Army surrounded, by keeping enough mobile forces around city fresh and spared from urban fighting. But then the city would have held out much better and it would amount to another endless siege. But it would be a strategic defeat (no oil), and political humiliation (no Stalingrad).
Another option was not to alter the original Blau and to go for Volga in full force. And only then (probably late August) to turn Southward. But then the strategic goal of getting the oil in 1942. would have to be dropped. Which would amount to strategic defeat.
Further option would have been to take some units from the Center (let’s say “Grossdeutchland, 9.PzD, and few more PzD) and reinforce the southern thrust. In that case today we would be discussing “What should have Model done to prevent 9th Army and part of 4.Army of being trapped in Rzhev-Viazma pocket in Operation “Mars”?
Or, he could have taken 11.Army from Crimea. But in that case Sinyavino offensive would have succedded, Leningrad siege would have been lifted in September 1942, Demyansk pocket would have fallen, and we would have had a topic on Army Group North do discuss, how it could have been saved.
The point is: Germans simply did not have enough forces to cover all the frontage, nor supplies to keep it all functioning as they wished. Whatever they had tried, a disaster of different kind was waiting to happen.
Some side points:
- I don’t think Germans were able to sustain a motorized corps all the way in Astrakhan area. That is 400-500km of roadless steppe from the nearest railhead in Kotelnikovo. There is a good reason 16.MotD stopped in Yelista.
- The bridgehead in Kremenskaya was not that relevant for the course of events. When Uranus started, 65.Army was not able to penetrate the lines of XI.AK (though it was part of the plan. To deprive German of forces to close the reversed front. There is a good explanation by Isayev here: ua-cam.com/video/RE-I4qWx3wc/v-deo.html). It was the two smaller bridgeheads in Kletskaya and Serafimovich screened by Romanian VI. And II. AK respectively, that proved to be the fatal for 6.Army.
- Cutting Volga is overrated. It is mentioned in Blau objectives, but more as a collateral benefit, rather then a strategic game changer. It didn't need Germans to block it to traffic, Volga is blocked by ice 4-5 months a year and not suitable for any kind of transport.
(For example, As early as early November 62nd Army was experienceing difficulties transporting it's meager supplies across the frozen crust. Getting something bigger and further up the north was all more challenging). Soviet Union relied on the railways for most of it's transport.
- I don’t agree that Axis got close to achieving their goal anywhere in 1942. For a moment in July it looked as if they are on a good track. But it was only that: it just looked so.
Paulus was not the man for the job the job called for a man with daring and imagination not by the book set piece Battle plan opportunity comes once and Paulus wasn't aware of it
Many good points. Normally, taking Astrakhan was the aim of Operation Fischreirher which implied taking Stalingrad first. Should 6th Army have cut the first part and gone for the Caspian Sea without taking the city? This could have helped securing the Caucasus and locking down the whole region, although there were also some negative considerations to take into account like you rightly pointed out.
But again, in my opinion, and at least by October 1942, any option was better than trying to capture the city whatever it takes. A better option could have been securing the Don Front. And in retrospect, we know that the central sector of the front (Rzhev) was largely strong enough to spare a few divisions to the southern one. But intelligence couldn't prove it at that time.
@@antonjoly9601 Anton, it's an honor to talk to you (your 4 volume atlas is an inevitable companion when reading any book on Stalingrad).
Operation Fischreirher made no military sense on it's own. It made sense only in case of Stalingrad being taken first. And it is not clear how would taking the west bank of Volga would have helped Germans. (I stress out that it is not possible to take Astrakhan itself, the city is protected by Volga delta.
Take a look here; retromap.ru/m/#14194016_z9_45.860368,47.606506 )
Taking a Kalmyk steppe would not block the Soviet communication. Their main communication artery was the double track railway on the eastern side of Volga that went from Astrakhan to Saratov (where there was the next railway bridge across Volga) and then northwest to Moscow or northeast into Kuybishev and furhter to Siberia. On top of that Soviets had another Caspian railway artery further to the East starting from Guryev to Orsk. So Astrakhan would not cut the communication in any way.
In the Astrakhan scenario, the only operational benefit for Germans would have been that there are fewer forces left in Stalingrad to be encircled. But then the encirclement would be easier to accomplish, leaving more reserves for exploitation push.
For example, instead of keeping entire two Red Army Fronts (Don and Stalingrad) to keep the encircled forces trapped in the city, it could have been done with half of that force. That would leave free an entire additional Front (say Don Front) for exploitation and a deep push maybe even as far as Rostov.
The same mistake of focusing on Stalingrad and leaving a overstretched flanks open, would only be made worse with going even further south to Astrakhan, leaving an even longer flank, and even fewer forces (not to mention an issue of supplying the army in Astrakhan). The city of Stalingrad could have played a role of a significant bridgehead and logistical base for such an counter strike. .
It is possible that if the bulk of the 6.Army down towards Astrakhan, the Red Army might have not attempt something like Uranus in the first place. Which is legitimate option. But they would have attempted something else. And God knows what that something else could have caused for Germans. Maybe even more catastrophic. Now that we know that Stalingrad as played out in actual history turned out to be the disaster for Germany because we have seen it happening, and thus it seems that anything else would have produced better results for Germans. But it is not the case. What we don’t know is how many similar disasters they have avoided by taking those exact decisions that they have actually taken. Alternative histories hide as many defeats as victories.
In a General staff military game with the Fall of 1942 set up, I would prefer the position of Red Army at any time.
In the very least I see the Red Army attempt to cut of the northern finger: Strike from the city towards Don, with simultaneous strike from the North. This would have trapped greater part of XIV PzK (3 divisions), VIII AK (2 divisions), XI AK (3 divisions) plus whatever Romanians would have been crushed in the process, and with the rest of the 6A. forces 400 km away in Astrakhan the chances of timely rescue would have been low.
I disagree that Germans could have spared anything from Rzhev front without making it collapse. It may look one sided victory for Germans, but the margin of victory was very small. Taking a single division might have tipped the scales in RA favour. What is often overlooked is that the German divisions in AGC were much more under strength than their AGS equivalents. Their staying and defensive powers were proportionally reduced, they could not withstand that much punishment. Even in the height of the battle of Stalingrad OKH was pumping reinforcements to AGC to compensate for this disproportion. Had but a single important division been pulled out from Rzhev salient it would have invited a disaster for Germans. The only way they could have release some forces from there was to evacuate the Rzhev salient (which is exactly what they did when they had to create some reserves).
The point is: even with the benefit of the hindsight there is little alternative to Paulus taking the city. He had to go there. This does not mean that he could not have performed better once he got into the city. He could have done much better, but that is another subject.
@@vladocuro6570 Thanks for the positive words. You're right to mention that A
alternative histories hide as many defeats as victories. And many of your arguments sound correct. Still I'm not sure 6th Army needed to go into the city, and I'm sure they didn't need to persist trying to capture it all during 2 months even as they had 90% of it.
@@antonjoly9601 The 6.A had to go into the Stalingrad (and try to take it, for that matter) for the same reason that led Wehrmacht to take Voronezh in early July. Voronezh was the northern pillar (or the 'roof' as Robert Citino have called it) of what would be described as German 'eastern wall', Stalingrad was supposed to be the eastern pillar in the same wall (and Astrakhan would have been the southern one). The logic behind taking Stalingrad is the the same as one behind taking Voronezh, and the logic is not that much in taking the city (Germans did not need Voronezh after all), but denying it to the enemy as the logistical and supply hub. As a matter of fact, the case for Stalingrad is even stronger: Voronezh is on the opposite side of the river (Don), therefore even leaving it to the Soviets would not be as dangerous as leaving Stalingrad which was on the "German side" of the river (Volga). Leaving Stalingrad in Soviet hands would mean leaving a dangerous bridgehead to Red Army. A bridgehead which could also double as supply depot, logistical hub, shelter, etc. therefore denying Stalingrad to the Red Army was even more compelling that doing that with Voronezh.
On the other side I fully agree with you that it was not necessary (though still highly preferable) to take entire city of Stalingrad. According to the military logic refered to above, the bare minimum was to deny it to the Red Army.
Bottom line: Paulus had to go in there to deny such an outpost to Red Army. But once in there, he didn't have to chase the 'mirage' of final conquest of the entire city.
- Consequently, what was absolutely critical for Germans was the control of Volga frontage rather than control of the territory of the city. And this is exactly what Paulus failed miserably at. He was going around the city hitting various districts almost randomly, all the while leaving the vast expanses of Volga waterfront to the Red Army. He was focused on the city as the price to be conquered, rather than an asset to be denied to the enemy.
To be cynical a bit: he was probably too much focused on getting that Feld-marshal baton.
I've spent hundreds on PC games, PC components and audiophile gear, but I consider the $$ spent in patreon dollars for this channel have yielded more dividends. Thank you.
Thank you! You seriously are making all this possible 🙂
Years ago, I read a Civil War history. It discussed Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, whether it was the right thing to do. The author wrote something I've never forgotten: For Robert E. Lee in the summer of 1863, there was no right thing to do.
This probably applies to the Germans by summer of 1942.
Your Stalingrad series is excellent - well done! Separately, when you get back to North Africa and especially the first battle of Alamein have a look at Major General Eric Dorman Smith. He was very different from most of the other British officers with a strong commitment to military innovation and professionalism. He was also a close friend of Ernest Hemingway. There is a very good biography about him by Lavinia Greacen.
Yes, we do have the advantage of hindsight to judge Paulus's decision. My question is that when Paulus or the OKH realized that taking the city was not an easy job after a few attempts, is it reasonable to pull back ,secure Paulus's flank , siege the city and free up some motorized units for other operations, like going for Astrakhan or help Kleist taking the caucasus, or was it too late already? Cant wait for the next episode to find out!
Exactly
AWESOME EPISODE! I LOVE HOW YOU HIGHLIGHT SOME OTHERS' COMMENTS AS WELL; THERE ARE MANY KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE FOLLOWING YOU AND I FEEL BLESSED TO SIT IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR DISCUSSION, LEARNING A BIT MY SELF AS WELL ;)
Great Video as always.
The germans certainly were aware of the railroad line from Grozny to Astrachan, as a reconnaissance patrol actually captured it for a while. Paul Carrell (yes, I know about the problems with him), even mentioned an anecdote, that the patrol even received a phone call from the next railway station at Astrachan...
As for blocking the Volga, I agree with the point that the myriad of smaller side-arms south of Stalingrad makes it fairly unfeasable. The argument for going straight to Astrachan comes from the fact that Astrachan was supposed to be the final end-pont of Operation Barbarossa to the south - there were no plans to go any further anyway. So, in theory, that's the final objective to be taken, then the entire operation would have been a success - when one forgets that the soviets needed not necessarily to surrender after Astrachan had fallen.
As for the last point raised in the video - while it has been the ususal tone for a long time to praise the Wehrmacht, since a couple of years, it has become "fashionable" to look at the logisitcs and industrial sides and say germany never had the slightest chance (especially amongst youtube historians) - which isn't completely true either and overloooks how close they actually came to reaching their objectives. Certainly, there were many flaws within the german military and economy (moral points aside for the moment), but for quite a while, it was not clear who would win ww2.
And a German "win" would not have meant total "world domination" by Germany as it has been defined by many historians of the war and by many propagandists. Most likely it would have taken the form of a vastly expanded Germany within the confines of Europe along side (or confined by) British and Russian spheres of influence with the US remaining a major but not a dominant factor on the global stage. Of course, the area within the German sphere of influence would be a nazi nightmare..But that wouldn't have been the first time the world looked on passively while state sponsored mass genocide and other horrors went on.
I'm so glad I found your channel. Raw unbiased history.
I was born not far from Volgograd (former Stalingrad). My town lies several hours south of Volgograd. There vicinity of swamps, small rivers and Volga mean that every summer begins from attacks of mosquitoes and midgets that literally cover your body and gnaw you alive. Their bites cause inflammation and iritation and you want to scratch all the time.
However their activity plummets drastically by the end of June, but Germans would have faced 35-40°C degree heat in the summer. Not great anyway. Many locals including us try to leave this place during heat and midget activity while some people supposed that Germans would would agree to find themselves in the thick of it.
Winters aren't easy too by the way. They can be really harsh due to the fact that the climate in that region is sharply continental and can be really frosty.
Of course we aren't as harsh as Sahara, but if you invade our region without being well prepared, be ready to suffer. A lot.
Brilliant. I send these videos to my dad who was a historical researcher and its great to show him these updates in WW2 history debate.
To me this series and research on Barbarossa highlight the absolute blindness to facts which Nazism fanaticism causes. The notion that in this second major offensive a year after Barbarossa the Germans hadnt learnt to established robust supply lines is mind boggoling. Talk about putting all their eggs in one basket, hoping for the best, preparing only for the best.
Also Muc-off sticker repping you must be a mountain biker.
You know shit gets real when the "BUT IS THIS REALLY THE CASE" is accompanied by a slightly annoyed finger-wiggle and funny stare
Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics! Good Job!
I am enjoying your Stalingrad videos and as I listen to your comments some thoughts occured to me. The objective of blocking the Volga from the Soviets shipping oil again {in my veiw} shows the narrow thinking of German army commanders. A simple solution of mining the river using HE111 and aerial sea mines could have achieved this earlier and quicker. This was a tactic used very successfully by the British against the Danube later in the war.This in my opinion shows the narrow, one dimensional thinking of the Germans in both world wars. Army tactics first and air and navy as mere instruments to aid that success.
Jonace
Whether or not crossing the Volga was part of the strategic plan, crossing the Volga north and south of Stalingrad would have enabled tactical encirclement of Stalingrad and eliminated resupply across the water and ice, the same thing that kept Leningrad going.
I think that taking Stalingrad or the Caucasus oil fields is only a temporary victory, the Soviets were still planning and preparing for Operation Uranus and Little Jupiter in '43 and they'd still have the material and manpower needed for this which might not break the Germans and the 5th Army like it did in our timeline but it would still be a hit that the German supply lines wouldn't be able to really cope with. Plus the Russian scorched earth policy meant that even when oil fields were captured by the German army they were virtually unusable and even if they were the oil would need to be transported back to Romanian for refining, then sent back to actually be used; meanwhile the Russian supply line was incredibly short and they were receiving huge amounts of vehicles, tanks, weapons and fuel from the Allies so even losing their oilfields they could in theory have gotten a good supply of oil and fuels from the Americans like they did with aircraft fuel. Love the videos Tik :)
Nothing produced in fiction is near as compelling as the true story of Stalingrad.
So I think something is being missed in this - I don't think it is a real problem for TIK's point but these things should be mentioned.
The Volga was itself a potential supply line. It is true that the Germans didn't have any vessels for use on the river, but the Soviets were moving oil by the river (the reason for trying to cut the river in the first place) so efforts could have been made to capture such vessels. I live in a major river city, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, and there are always barges and tugs going and coming; it would not be hard to capture one or more tugs and tows if a concerted effort was made, even if there were some soldiers aboard the tugs protecting them. Of course, the best place to transfer supplies on to such tows would have been Stalingrad, so taking it still seems like wise move, but perhaps someone smarter than I could find an alternative for the Germans.
Also, those little rivers on the map TIK mentions? I sincerely doubt they are of any import to the supply situation. The largest of the distributaries of Volga shown, the Akhtuba, has a flow rate of 153 cubic meters a second; it runs from approximately Stalingrad to the Caspian Sea. The Volga at Astrakhan has a flow rate of 8,060 cubic meters a second, making the Akhtuba's flow approximately 2% of that of the Volga proper. I can't even find any sources to suggest that it is navigable, which figures given what my experience tells me. Now, various modifications have been made to the Volga since 1942-3, but you could double the flow of the Akhtube or any of the other distributaries in the region and it would make no difference to their practical viability as logistical conduits to substitute for the Volga in even a partial sense. Whereas I know that Europe has very few large rivers, I'm just a guy who lives on the Ohio river and likes water, and I was able to look at the map TIK showed and realize those distributaries couldn't be significant; Paulus would have had someone around him that would have had the same reaction I had, and if he didn't that was a serious oversight. The point being, Stalingrad isn't really any better of a place to cut the Volga than anywhere else in the region, except for its status as a notable city and rail hub.
This isn't to cast aspersions on TIK though. TIK is from England and there aren't any rivers in England, at least not in the sense we mean it in America (or Russia, I presume) so he wasn't to know.
I have to finish up your video from last week, but looks good.
Come on Vass, keep up! ;)
@@TheImperatorKnight I'm going at the pace of the Wehrmacht's logistical support. ;p
On serious note, been dividing my time between Savo Island and the Arctic Convoy's (Former for work, about one ship there. Latter for personal reading. Abandoning ship in an Arctic winter is hell.) And David Stahel. I'm using his audio book, I like it for the narrative, but I do miss having the maps and tables laid out to get an idea of place. Ever run into that issue?
"I do miss having the maps and tables laid out to get an idea of place. Ever run into that issue?"
Yes! Constantly! This is why I don't like buying books on Kindle, because the maps are usually displayed too small.
You should have seen me working on the scripts for the next season of Stalingrad earlier today. Books open all over the desk showing maps, Photoshop open on one screen with three different maps in different tabs, and other maps Anton Joly had uploaded for me on Google Drive open on another. All to figure out who and what was where :)
But there's never enough maps, and if there are, they're awful!
@@TheImperatorKnight It's a monumental task when there are so many units, both Soviet and German. I'm a bit of the same way with my writing. I currently have 12 tabs open on my PC, with primary/secondary articles posted, as well has a stack of monographs by my feet for this article. I still feel like I don't enough, and that my end product will be lacking for one small naval battle. I applaud your work with the Battlestorm series. I know these videos take a lot. Do you plan to visit Russia when all of this is over to see the sights yourself?
Hey Tik,I have been entertaining a question for a while...what if the germans used their famed paratroopers to captured the oil fields.There would have been a lot of chaos behind the front lines.Even though the logistics would have played its part,but was this really the case???Early Thanks for the reply,keep making these videos.
It took 6th Army 21 days to get from the Don to the outskirts of the city and assault it. How did they conclude that they would take Stalingrad easily? They didn t have enough provisions for an attack, they were forced to take divisions from Army Group A to approach the city.
They should ve cleared the Orlovka area and the Soviet bridgeheads over the Don starting with the 13th of September and then stayed in deffensive waiting for Army Group A to take the Caucasus and then both formations go to Volga and Astrakhan. This way they were keeping the initial length of the 6th army front line and dangers on the flanks would have been reduced. The supplies would ve been enough for everyone in AG B, including for the Axis allied armies.
Hi Ti, thanks for the video. 1) As for the hindsight in only isolating Stalingrad, that's true but only for August. But the battle lasted three months. When they saw after two or three weeks that it takes too much of the summer time they needed for offensive, they should have given it another thought. 2) Even cutting off Volga river transport wouldn't stop the Soviet oil flowing towards refineries in Siberia (I read that most refineries in Baku were uninstalled and moved to Siberia leaving Baku only as an oil mining area, from which Soviet gained about 12 million tons per year, less than pre-war). Soviets still transported oil by ships to Atyrau in northern Caspian Sea and then by rail and if that was stopped by Luftwaffe after capturing Astrakhan, they still shipped oil to Krasnovodsk (currently Turkmenbashi) opposite to Baku from which it went further by rail. Theoretically they could use even the newly finished railway to Iran and further east along southern coast of the Caspian Sea. This option would also enable western allies to provide rolling stock.
How the Germans had to depend on RR system. .
Not to mention having to change the guage on EVERY mile that they need to transport ..
You, Mark Fenton, and military history visualized are easy, by far some of the best channels on here. All evidence based and well sourced. No grandstanding or moralizing. Just tell us the facts as they are.
Dont exist south side or north side of the river. Existeted right or left side of the river. Thank you, your video is number one. The best what I ever seen
This in depth analysis is fascinating.
So what WERE the logistics of the Soviets moving oil up from the south? Tankers or barges to Astrakhan? Barges along the Volga? How much if any was moved by that rail line along the Volga? Was it all refined? Where there any refineries further north? How much if any American refined petroleum passed through this route as opposed from the Arctic ports? Just a few things that have me wondering
Little fuel came from lend lease Diesel engines Industrial & Power plants don't need highly refined gasoline T34s that die in their first action don't need to worry much about fouling engine w crappy fuel
@@russell7489 According to the figures I've seen MOST Soviet aviation fuel was supplied by the US
@@russell7489 history.army.mil/books/wwii/persian/chapter15.htm . . this source answered questions from the American/UK/ Persian gulf side but left me wondering about the Soviet logistics from the Caspian north.
As a person who understands nothing at all about war, it seems to me that city fighting would be avoided. So, if encircling the city achieves many of the strategic objectives, it seems like that would be considered at the time. I.e. 20/20 hindsight isn’t needed.
Well, since you post such short videos now we might as well read the comments while we’re here. Cheers mate!
Fascinating discussion. When talking about blocking Stalingrad in the north 7:27 and blocking reinforcements from coming south on the west side of the Volga 10:05, there is also the question of Russian reinforcements and supplies being brought across the Volga into Stalingrad which apparently Paulus never considered.
That to me was his biggest mistake although I don't know how practical it would have been for Paulus to attack from the north and south with the Volga on his left and right flanks respectively. If such moves were practical then Stalingrad could have been wrapped up toot sweet.
To clarify, Paulus should have double enveloped Stalingrad instead of making wasteful direct attacks
4:50 - The 16th motorized that was in Elista. It did send some pioneer troops to Astrakhan, but they were stopped by the Soviets. Weirdly enough, this Division did not move at all that autumn.